Theistic Aversion to Physicality (Materialism)

Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Theistic Aversion to Physicality (Materialism)

The imaginary battle between "flesh" and "spirit" is as old as theism
itself, though the definition of "spirit" has varied throughout the ages. It's
understandable why theistic thought champions the "spiritual" over physical
because that which is "physical" is associated with the temporal, and thus
associated with death. "Spirit" implies something supernatural that is supposed
to transcend death.

However in modern times,with the advent of popular new speculative studies
in physics, theists have a field day trying to redefine and reinvent terms like
"spirit" or "spirit realm".

Some imagine the spirit realm to be physical, that is belonging to the same
reality as the "flesh" just on a different dimension ( some like to infuse
string theory here) or perhaps it's another universe entirely, perhaps a
universe of "less dense matter" ( multiverse theory, it can get really
interesting when theists, especially those with just enough knowledge of physics
to make them dangerous spout pseudo science babble).

What really baffles me , though is why many theists feel that the "spirit
realm" MUST be something other than matter or energy. What difference would it
make,assuming there really is a "spirit realm", if it was composed of less dense
matter, energy or something entirely different? Is matter evil? Is energy?

I'm reminded of conspiracy theorists who eschew the credit based system of
economy, insisting that banking is an institution of elitist conspirators. Most
of such people I have come across, feel that way because they couldn't
understand the credit based system, couldn't figure out how to use it and became
dysfunctional and impoverished, blaming their financial failures on a conspiracy
theory.Much of this type of thought seems to run together.
 

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 "Spirit" just means

 "Spirit" just means "incorporeal."  I've never defined it in any other way.  

Perhaps there are material bodies in the afterlife; I don't really give it much thought.

The issue is when an atheist claims that everything is material, including numbers, propositions, dreams, thoughts, and so forth.  This is an untenable position that necessarily precludes the existence of a being such as God.  Happily, there doesn't seem to be any decent argument supporting this philosophical position.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 "Spirit" just means "incorporeal."  I've never defined it in any other way.  

Perhaps there are material bodies in the afterlife; I don't really give it much thought.

The issue is when an atheist claims that everything is material, including numbers, propositions, dreams, thoughts, and so forth.  This is an untenable position that necessarily precludes the existence of a being such as God.  Happily, there doesn't seem to be any decent argument supporting this philosophical position.

The lack of evidence for the incorporeal precludes the need for a counter argument doesn't it?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 "Spirit" just means "incorporeal."  I've never defined it in any other way.  

Perhaps there are material bodies in the afterlife; I don't really give it much thought.

The issue is when an atheist claims that everything is material, including numbers, propositions, dreams, thoughts, and so forth.  This is an untenable position that necessarily precludes the existence of a being such as God.  Happily, there doesn't seem to be any decent argument supporting this philosophical position.

The lack of evidence for the incorporeal precludes the need for a counter argument doesn't it?



Be honest.  Did you look up "incorporeal" before you responded to this post?  
 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 "Spirit" just means "incorporeal."  I've never defined it in any other way.  

Perhaps there are material bodies in the afterlife; I don't really give it much thought.

The issue is when an atheist claims that everything is material, including numbers, propositions, dreams, thoughts, and so forth.  This is an untenable position that necessarily precludes the existence of a being such as God.  Happily, there doesn't seem to be any decent argument supporting this philosophical position.

The lack of evidence for the incorporeal precludes the need for a counter argument doesn't it?



Be honest.  Did you look up "incorporeal" before you responded to this post?  
 

Stinging from the fact that I've read more from your side than you have from mine?

Where's your evidence for a bodiless magic man?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_M,I would never claim

Mr_M,

I would never claim 'everything is material', and you are quite right (are you surprised? ), all kinds of 'referents' are not material in themselves, such as the things you list.

The main problem Theists mostly seem to have - not necessarily you, Mr_M - is a kind of contempt for 'mere' matter, as though it cannot be a basis, an essential substrate, for things like consciousness, and any 'higher' forms of mentality. The traditional use of the qualifier 'higher' is part of that mind-set.

Those people typically reject all or most forms of 'emergence', where complex, 'higher'-level processes and structures are dependent on the properties of 'mere' matter which allow persistent and arbitrarily complex structures to be formed, or even emerge spontaneously under conditions where the complex interactions  of processes such as life and selective pressure exist. Such 'higher' forms are dependent on, but not 'reducible' to, the properties of 'matter' particles.

So yeah, Marty, I agree with you.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick wrote:What

Marty Hamrick wrote:


What really baffles me , though is why many theists feel that the "spirit
realm" MUST be something other than matter or energy. What difference would it
make,assuming there really is a "spirit realm", if it was composed of less dense
matter, energy or something entirely different? Is matter evil? Is energy?

I think it might have something to do with the idea of immortality and after-life as you had mentioned.

In other words, if it's 'just physical, but different', then it is also subject to death, and cannot really be immortal. At least, that's how their bias appears to me. But, honestly, I've asked myself the same question many times before, so I guess I'm not too sure of my answer here.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 "Spirit" just means "incorporeal."  I've never defined it in any other way.  

Perhaps there are material bodies in the afterlife; I don't really give it much thought.

The issue is when an atheist claims that everything is material, including numbers, propositions, dreams, thoughts, and so forth.  This is an untenable position that necessarily precludes the existence of a being such as God.  Happily, there doesn't seem to be any decent argument supporting this philosophical position.

<sigh> Yet another misunderstanding of the difference between physical and material.

I've covered this so many times, I made a post dedicated to pointing out the difference (esp. in the embedded video). The Word is: Physicalism

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 "Spirit" just means "incorporeal."  I've never defined it in any other way.  

Perhaps there are material bodies in the afterlife; I don't really give it much thought.

The issue is when an atheist claims that everything is material, including numbers, propositions, dreams, thoughts, and so forth.  This is an untenable position that necessarily precludes the existence of a being such as God.  Happily, there doesn't seem to be any decent argument supporting this philosophical position.

The lack of evidence for the incorporeal precludes the need for a counter argument doesn't it?



Be honest.  Did you look up "incorporeal" before you responded to this post?

Incorporeal just means bodiless. Have you ever seen anything real that wasn't embodied? Hint: Thoughts are embodied in your brain. Try removing your brain and continuing to think, if you doubt me.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

natural wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 "Spirit" just means "incorporeal."  I've never defined it in any other way.  

Perhaps there are material bodies in the afterlife; I don't really give it much thought.

The issue is when an atheist claims that everything is material, including numbers, propositions, dreams, thoughts, and so forth.  This is an untenable position that necessarily precludes the existence of a being such as God.  Happily, there doesn't seem to be any decent argument supporting this philosophical position.

<sigh> Yet another misunderstanding of the difference between physical and material.

I've covered this so many times, I made a post dedicated to pointing out the difference (esp. in the embedded video). The Word is: Physicalism

Your article was a waste of 5 minutes of my life.  

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
It wasn't intended for you,

It wasn't intended for you, dumbass. Besides, if you didn't watch the video (which is longer than 5 min), then you missed most of the main points.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Be honest.

natural wrote:

Incorporeal just means bodiless. Have you ever seen anything real that wasn't embodied? Hint: Thoughts are embodied in your brain. Try removing your brain and continuing to think, if you doubt me.

Do you believe that you are so gifted so as to be able to resolve every complicated philosophical issue in a single sentence or sophomorically written online article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Multiple_realizability

As far as your logic goes, we also have never seen anything living that's not on the planet Earth.  Does it necessarily follow that Earth is the only place which can support life?


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 "Spirit" just means "incorporeal."  I've never defined it in any other way.  

Perhaps there are material bodies in the afterlife; I don't really give it much thought.

The issue is when an atheist claims that everything is material, including numbers, propositions, dreams, thoughts, and so forth.  This is an untenable position that necessarily precludes the existence of a being such as God.  Happily, there doesn't seem to be any decent argument supporting this philosophical position.

The lack of evidence for the incorporeal precludes the need for a counter argument doesn't it?



Be honest.  Did you look up "incorporeal" before you responded to this post?  
 

Stinging from the fact that I've read more from your side than you have from mine?

Where's your evidence for a bodiless magic man?

LOL 

No wonder why you wanted me to go first.  You wanted to count the number of books I've mentioned, and then you would Google search some other books and list them as material that you've read.  For what it's worth, I don't think you've read any of those books.  If you did, then I would expect your posts to be better thought out than they actually are, because pretty much every argument I've seen you make is addressed by most of those authors.  And you continue making those arguments in such a way that they are still open to those same objections.  If you actually read those books, you would at least formalize them in a way that gets around the objections mentioned by those authors.

This is too easy.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:natural

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

natural wrote:

Incorporeal just means bodiless. Have you ever seen anything real that wasn't embodied? Hint: Thoughts are embodied in your brain. Try removing your brain and continuing to think, if you doubt me.

Do you believe that you are so gifted so as to be able to resolve every complicated philosophical issue in a single sentence or sophomorically written online article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Multiple_realizability

As far as your logic goes, we also have never seen anything living that's not on the planet Earth.  Does it necessarily follow that Earth is the only place which can support life?

 

Ummmm.  And are you so gifted that you can resolve every complicated philosophical issue in a single sentence or sophomorically [sic] written online article? 

I have a bet with myself on your answer.  Surprise me.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

cj wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

natural wrote:

Incorporeal just means bodiless. Have you ever seen anything real that wasn't embodied? Hint: Thoughts are embodied in your brain. Try removing your brain and continuing to think, if you doubt me.

Do you believe that you are so gifted so as to be able to resolve every complicated philosophical issue in a single sentence or sophomorically written online article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Multiple_realizability

As far as your logic goes, we also have never seen anything living that's not on the planet Earth.  Does it necessarily follow that Earth is the only place which can support life?

 

Ummmm.  And are you so gifted that you can resolve every complicated philosophical issue in a single sentence or sophomorically [sic] written online article? 

I have a bet with myself on your answer.  Surprise me.

 

I'll answer that, sweetie.  But first, tell us what 3 + 2 is.  Come on darling, you can do it!  That's it.  

Maybe you'll get a lollipop.

3 + 2.  Come on!


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:cj

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

cj wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

natural wrote:

Incorporeal just means bodiless. Have you ever seen anything real that wasn't embodied? Hint: Thoughts are embodied in your brain. Try removing your brain and continuing to think, if you doubt me.

Do you believe that you are so gifted so as to be able to resolve every complicated philosophical issue in a single sentence or sophomorically written online article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Multiple_realizability

As far as your logic goes, we also have never seen anything living that's not on the planet Earth.  Does it necessarily follow that Earth is the only place which can support life?

Ummmm.  And are you so gifted that you can resolve every complicated philosophical issue in a single sentence or sophomorically [sic] written online article? 

I have a bet with myself on your answer.  Surprise me.

I'll answer that, sweetie.  But first, tell us what 3 + 2 is.  Come on darling, you can do it!  That's it.  

Maybe you'll get a lollipop.

3 + 2.  Come on!

 

Pookie love, you know what to do with that lollipop.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 "Spirit" just means "incorporeal."  I've never defined it in any other way.  

Perhaps there are material bodies in the afterlife; I don't really give it much thought.

The issue is when an atheist claims that everything is material, including numbers, propositions, dreams, thoughts, and so forth.  This is an untenable position that necessarily precludes the existence of a being such as God.  Happily, there doesn't seem to be any decent argument supporting this philosophical position.

The lack of evidence for the incorporeal precludes the need for a counter argument doesn't it?



Be honest.  Did you look up "incorporeal" before you responded to this post?  
 

Stinging from the fact that I've read more from your side than you have from mine?

Where's your evidence for a bodiless magic man?

LOL 

No wonder why you wanted me to go first.  You wanted to count the number of books I've mentioned, and then you would Google search some other books and list them as material that you've read.  For what it's worth, I don't think you've read any of those books.  If you did, then I would expect your posts to be better thought out than they actually are, because pretty much every argument I've seen you make is addressed by most of those authors.  And you continue making those arguments in such a way that they are still open to those same objections.  If you actually read those books, you would at least formalize them in a way that gets around the objections mentioned by those authors.

This is too easy.

Now, now, just because I've read things and am not pulling information out of my ass as you like to do doesn't mean I'm lying. I believe that lying is morally wrong. Remember I'm not a Christian.

Indeed those arguments are addressed by those authors - poorly. That's why my arguments still stand. I don't have to work around every logical fallacy and unproven assertion they make.

They haven't beaten them and neither have you. Then again, you'd know that if you had read what you claimed. Did you just Google what famous atheists you knew? At least I bought the damn things and/or visited a library.

I'd continue discussing things with you but I'd have to resort to monosyllabics to help you understand. It is too easy - would you mind putting up a fight?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:natural

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

natural wrote:

Incorporeal just means bodiless. Have you ever seen anything real that wasn't embodied? Hint: Thoughts are embodied in your brain. Try removing your brain and continuing to think, if you doubt me.

Do you believe that you are so gifted so as to be able to resolve every complicated philosophical issue in a single sentence or sophomorically written online article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Multiple_realizability

As far as your logic goes, we also have never seen anything living that's not on the planet Earth.  Does it necessarily follow that Earth is the only place which can support life?

But we have seen life, dumbass. Have you seen ANYTHING that is disembodied? Anything at all? Just one thing. Oh, and show us some evidence for it, by the way.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:But we have

natural wrote:

But we have seen life, dumbass. Have you seen ANYTHING that is disembodied? Anything at all? Just one thing. Oh, and show us some evidence for it, by the way.

(1) Have you seen ANYTHING living on a planet other than Earth? Anything at all?  Just one thing.  

(2) Isn't the question flawed, considering that whatever does not have a body cannot be seen?

(3) Did you read the Wiki article on Multiple Realizability Theory?  

(4) Even if I've never seen an incorporeal thing, is the fact that I've never seen one proof of the universal nonexistence of all things incorporeal?

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:natural

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

natural wrote:

But we have seen life, dumbass. Have you seen ANYTHING that is disembodied? Anything at all? Just one thing. Oh, and show us some evidence for it, by the way.

(1) Have you seen ANYTHING living on a planet other than Earth? Anything at all?  Just one thing.  

(2) Isn't the question flawed, considering that whatever does not have a body cannot be seen?

(3) Did you read the Wiki article on Multiple Realizability Theory?  

(4) Even if I've never seen an incorporeal thing, is the fact that I've never seen one proof of the universal nonexistence of all things incorporeal?

We haven't seen or sensed in any way life on any other planet, but we haven't physically visited any which might possibly have some sort of life, or viewed them remotely with anything sensitive enough to definitely detect any form of life if it was there. So all we can say is that:

1. Life exists on at least one planet in the Universe, and

2. We cannot eliminate the possibility that it exists elsewhere in the Universe, therefore there may be life elsewhere. Some analyses suggest it is highly likely that there is life elsewhere.

====

In common usage, and especially in this context, 'seen' should be regarded as standing in for 'capable of being detected by its physical effects in our universe. If something has absolutely no effect on any known object in this universe, it is exactly as though it doesn't exist. It should not be assumed to exist until at least it can be detected in some reasonably unambiguous way by its effects on something that we can detect and measure. Or at least it can have no part in any explanations for any phenomenon we do observe.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick wrote:The

Marty Hamrick wrote:

The imaginary battle between "flesh" and "spirit" is as old as theism
itself, though the definition of "spirit" has varied throughout the ages. It's
understandable why theistic thought champions the "spiritual" over physical
because that which is "physical" is associated with the temporal, and thus
associated with death. "Spirit" implies something supernatural that is supposed
to transcend death.

However in modern times,with the advent of popular new speculative studies
in physics, theists have a field day trying to redefine and reinvent terms like
"spirit" or "spirit realm".

Some imagine the spirit realm to be physical, that is belonging to the same
reality as the "flesh" just on a different dimension ( some like to infuse
string theory here) or perhaps it's another universe entirely, perhaps a
universe of "less dense matter" ( multiverse theory, it can get really
interesting when theists, especially those with just enough knowledge of physics
to make them dangerous spout pseudo science babble).

What really baffles me , though is why many theists feel that the "spirit
realm" MUST be something other than matter or energy. What difference would it
make,assuming there really is a "spirit realm", if it was composed of less dense
matter, energy or something entirely different? Is matter evil? Is energy?


What difference would it make? None, until this "spirit realm" is scientifically understood and technologically utilized. That's the point, right?

And which theists say there is anything but energy and a something like "frozen" form of energy, called matter?

My opinion is, that there must be beginning by discovering the forms of matter which are qualitatively most close to ours, but not yet well known. These are far from the immortality of "spirit" whatever it is, but will cause a scientific revolution, when discovered.

I already gathered some scientific data on this topic, but so far nobody here showed any interest. Which is diffcult to understand. Perhaps everyone here had already made up their mind and their youthful curiosity had burned out with cynicism of countless disappointments? I posted the links all around, but probably nobody even looked at them, the studies or journal references. What is worse, religional closed-mindedness, or scientific lack of concern?

Anyway, why do we need the "spiritual substance" or anything like that? Because stuff happens, that demands such explanation. There is evidence of life energy field, surrounding living objects more than non-living (no matter of electric or magnetic charge or temperature). There is also evidence that this substance has its share on atmospheric phenomena, nerve system, health and so on. 

And finally, I have my daily personal experience, which confirms a lot of the ancient Indian teachings on human energy field, etc. It seems logical, that many people in history were aware of various aspects of the "spirit" component of a person, so they described it, painted it and more, created a lot of religion and mythology around it. And some very unwise exercises for exploiting sexual energies.
 

May I ask you a personal question? 
If you feel a powerful emotion, such as love, where do you feel it? Can you localize any area on your body where you feel this emotion? I mean a steady love, not the drug rush of falling in love. Could you also locate areas of other emotions, like anger, euphoria, or fellowship with a present group of people? Just asking, it might be useful to give me a comparison. 


Marty Hamrick wrote:
 I'm reminded of conspiracy theorists who eschew the credit based system of
economy, insisting that banking is an institution of elitist conspirators. Most
of such people I have come across, feel that way because they couldn't
understand the credit based system, couldn't figure out how to use it and became
dysfunctional and impoverished, blaming their financial failures on a conspiracy
theory.Much of this type of thought seems to run together.

Monetary system is a giant Ponzi scheme, are there any doubts about that? Money are used as commodity and created out of nothing through speculation, by a privileged part of society, the financial sector of economy. Money make money. Rich get richer, poor get poorer. Who has little money, will be taken the little he has and it will be given to rich people. 
There is no need for Illuminati creating that system, but it doesn't mean that people are responsible for their poverty. Not if they never had much money, education and employment opportunities to begin with. Money are not given out equally for a fair start, you know. Then there is of course the technological unemployment, which "takes people's jobs" since the dawn of time and technology. 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Marty Hamrick
atheist
Marty Hamrick's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If you feel a powerful

Quote:
If you feel a powerful emotion, such as love, where do you feel it?

 

Depends on the emotion and the circumstance. Fear grips around the chest and throat, the blood feels like it's frozen, breathing becomes shallow. Love feels different depending on the type of love. The love I have for my dog feels different than the love I have for my daughter or my wife and like I said, it depends on the circumstance. I might feel a burst of parental pride and admiration for my daughter when she achieves or I may feel a closeness when we're talking. This can feel like a glow or warmth in the chest. All of these symptoms can be traced to brain chemistry and it's effects. Feeling in the chest is typical, which is why the ancients believed that the heart was the seat of emotion.

 

Quote:
There is no need for Illuminati creating that system, but it doesn't mean that people are responsible for their poverty.

Agreed and please don't think I meant to generalize. It's just that most of the folks that I know who get really wrapped up in conspiracy theories are seriously life dysfunctional. Not all, I've known quite a few John Birchers who were financially very well off, but the majority of Illuminati conspiracy fans that I know were severly life dysfunctional. One guy I know is in his 50's ,lives with his parents on disability and spends most of his time posting warnings on his facebook wall.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick wrote:Quote:If

Marty Hamrick wrote:

Quote:
If you feel a powerful emotion, such as love, where do you feel it?

Depends on the emotion and the circumstance. Fear grips around the chest and throat, the blood feels like it's frozen, breathing becomes shallow. Love feels different depending on the type of love. The love I have for my dog feels different than the love I have for my daughter or my wife and like I said, it depends on the circumstance. I might feel a burst of parental pride and admiration for my daughter when she achieves or I may feel a closeness when we're talking. This can feel like a glow or warmth in the chest. All of these symptoms can be traced to brain chemistry and it's effects. Feeling in the chest is typical, which is why the ancients believed that the heart was the seat of emotion.

Well, I didn't mean fear, because this one is obvious enough. 
So you say, that you don't feel any centralized areas of such rather positive emotions. If love or closeness is felt in the chest, it isn't so centralized that this feeling could come from the middle, where's the anahata chakra? 
I mean, those who are aware of this subtle system of energetic conduits and centers may notice, that they activate with corresponding emotions and that they influence the nearby endocrine glands (including thymus). But it's diffcult to tell how much of this is felt by normal people. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Marty Hamrick wrote:Mostof

Marty Hamrick wrote:

Most
of such people I have come across, feel that way because they couldn't
understand the credit based system, couldn't figure out how to use it and became
dysfunctional and impoverished, blaming their financial failures on a conspiracy
theory.Much of this type of thought seems to run together.

...

Quote:
There is no need for Illuminati creating that system, but it doesn't mean that people are responsible for their poverty.

Agreed and please don't think I meant to generalize. It's just that most of the folks that I know who get really wrapped up in conspiracy theories are seriously life dysfunctional. Not all, I've known quite a few John Birchers who were financially very well off, but the majority of Illuminati conspiracy fans that I know were severly life dysfunctional. One guy I know is in his 50's ,lives with his parents on disability and spends most of his time posting warnings on his facebook wall.

Sounds to me like it might have more to do with a mental health issue, than simple lack of understanding of the credit system.

Quote:
Quote:
If you feel a powerful emotion, such as love, where do you feel it?

Depends on the emotion and the circumstance. Fear grips around the chest and throat, the blood feels like it's frozen, breathing becomes shallow. Love feels different depending on the type of love. The love I have for my dog feels different than the love I have for my daughter or my wife and like I said, it depends on the circumstance. I might feel a burst of parental pride and admiration for my daughter when she achieves or I may feel a closeness when we're talking. This can feel like a glow or warmth in the chest. All of these symptoms can be traced to brain chemistry and it's effects. Feeling in the chest is typical, which is why the ancients believed that the heart was the seat of emotion.

I agree that such feelings can be 'localized' to areas of the body, but nearly all of those 'localizations' occur more so in the brain than actually in the body. The brain's somatosensory cortex maps out the body into a kind of 'homunculus' in the brain where body sensations are processed:

(There are actually two homunculi, one for sensation, and one for motor control. )

Internal body sensations may be localized in different parts of the brain from this diagram, I'm not sure, but the point being that there is undoubtedly some region in the brain where such sensations are felt.

And furthermore, the brain itself can be the originator of such sensations. For example, if you stimulate the region for your thumb (with an electrode on the brain's surface, e.g. during brain surgery), you'll feel as if your thumb is being touched. (That's how this diagram was mapped out so precisely.)

The phenomenon known as 'phantom limb' is because the nerves from an amputated limb have been severed, and now the brain region which used to process the sensations from your leg, for example, are now just processing random brain signals which 'feel' as if your missing leg is still there, but itchy or painful.

This is what I mean when I say that seemingly 'non-material' things are always 'embodied' in something. Here, we see that our 'feelings' and 'sensations' are literally embodied in the brain, to the extent that you can cut open a person's skull and literally point to the location where their feeling of a particular body sensation is happening. It doesn't exist in the house down the street or on the other side of the Milky Way galaxy, it occurs right there, in your brain, in a small region that could in principle be isolated down to probably a few thousand neurons (for a very precise sensation, like a pin prick).

The idea that feelings like 'love in my heart' could likewise be physically pin-pointed in the brain suddenly seems breath-takingly mundane, and the idea that it has anything to do with an 'incorporeal' soul about as ridiculous as believing that shadows in your closet are actually a scary monster ... after you've already turned the lights on and spotted the pile of laundry.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:(There are

natural wrote:

(There are actually two homunculi, one for sensation, and one for motor control. )

Internal body sensations may be localized in different parts of the brain from this diagram, I'm not sure, but the point being that there is undoubtedly some region in the brain where such sensations are felt.

And furthermore, the brain itself can be the originator of such sensations. For example, if you stimulate the region for your thumb (with an electrode on the brain's surface, e.g. during brain surgery), you'll feel as if your thumb is being touched. (That's how this diagram was mapped out so precisely.)

The phenomenon known as 'phantom limb' is because the nerves from an amputated limb have been severed, and now the brain region which used to process the sensations from your leg, for example, are now just processing random brain signals which 'feel' as if your missing leg is still there, but itchy or painful.

This is what I mean when I say that seemingly 'non-material' things are always 'embodied' in something. Here, we see that our 'feelings' and 'sensations' are literally embodied in the brain, to the extent that you can cut open a person's skull and literally point to the location where their feeling of a particular body sensation is happening. It doesn't exist in the house down the street or on the other side of the Milky Way galaxy, it occurs right there, in your brain, in a small region that could in principle be isolated down to probably a few thousand neurons (for a very precise sensation, like a pin prick).

The idea that feelings like 'love in my heart' could likewise be physically pin-pointed in the brain suddenly seems breath-takingly mundane, and the idea that it has anything to do with an 'incorporeal' soul about as ridiculous as believing that shadows in your closet are actually a scary monster ... after you've already turned the lights on and spotted the pile of laundry.

Very well, so this is where the feelings or perception are processed. How does it work? We know that this particular spot, when stimulated, produces that sensation there and there.
But does it work the other way, like when I touch something, then that corresponding area of brain lights up? 
If yes, is it possible to detect in this way if a person is experiencing the sensation of a "phantom limb" at a given moment?

If yes, that would be great. Let's say I feel like a walking Vedic textbook, feeling all these chakras and other equipment that people apparently don't know they have. I don't feel just a phantom limb or phantom pain, I feel a whole freakin' "phantom body". Really, students of chinese medicine or whatever could use me as a model. 
So you say, that these feelings can be detected in brain, in these homunculus areas? Do I have to take my skull top off for that?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Very well, so

Luminon wrote:
Very well, so this is where the feelings or perception are processed. How does it work? We know that this particular spot, when stimulated, produces that sensation there and there. But does it work the other way, like when I touch something, then that corresponding area of brain lights up? 

Of course. That's it's primary function. The electrical stimulus producing sensations was just an accidental discovery (I think). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatosensory_system

Will get back to this later. Have to go.


 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:If yes, is it

Luminon wrote:
If yes, is it possible to detect in this way if a person is experiencing the sensation of a "phantom limb" at a given moment?

Not going to bother googling it, but I will unreservedly say yes.

Quote:

If yes, that would be great. Let's say I feel like a walking Vedic textbook, feeling all these chakras and other equipment that people apparently don't know they have. I don't feel just a phantom limb or phantom pain, I feel a whole freakin' "phantom body". Really, students of chinese medicine or whatever could use me as a model. 
So you say, that these feelings can be detected in brain, in these homunculus areas? Do I have to take my skull top off for that?

Yes, in principle and almost certainly in practice, they will be able to locate such sensations in your brain. Don't know how long that'll take to get the technology. I'm optimistic. I'll say less than 20 years for sure, less than 10 maybe, less than 5 possibly.

I wouldn't recommend volunteering to have your skull cracked. FMRI technology keeps getting better and better. It won't be long before they can do high precision brain scans like that. Probably it would involve you having to be able to reproduce a specific sensation on request, such as having your 'spirit body' stub its toe on a 'spirit rock' whenever the experimenter asks. Then, the computer would analyze your brain activation patterns and correlate which areas correspond to which times you stubbed your toe, and subtracting from the 'background' activity those times when you aren't experiencing 'spiritual stubbed toe pain'. That's how they do things like reading people's minds (reading their intentions before they are aware of having those intentions) right now. Again, not going to google it, you can do that yourself. There's lots of cool stuff being discovered about the brain these days.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!