@Essence: You just said that your encounter with Ms. Moon Goddess changed the way you looked at the world and interpreted events, correct? Given your explanation of a "spirit" being one's personality, etc., has your spirit not just been changed?
How would your opinion change if these things could be found to all have physical correlates in the brain? What if we COULD measure personality through neuroimaging techniques in the future, for example?
If we could find a way to tell everything about a person by scanning his or her brain, I think we wouldn't have any debates like this anymore, so it would be irrelevant.
Should I take that to mean you would abandon your current beliefs?
Umm...duh? That's kind of the point of defining them as "not measurable by scientific methods." If they were measurable, we would have evidence.
You clearly think there's some evidence for it. Why do you believe in it otherwise?
How do you know that a spirit only experiences the objective world through its host body? You just said we can't observe it.
It's an inference based on the fact that a spirit interprets events in the physical world, which is axiomatic based on the observation that every person has their own interpretations of events in the physical world. If it couldn't observe the world, it wouldn't be able to interpret events.
How do you know a spirit interprets events in the physical world?
Also, why does each person having an interpretation mean that the spirit "only experiences the objective world through its host body"? Why can't it experience it in other ways as well?
How do you know a person has the same spirit at all times, rather than having a different spirit one day and another the next?
Because with the exception of deeply disturbed individuals or rare crises of faith,
So do those people have different spirits at different times?
we all maintain the same (albeit slowly-evolving) internal explanations for events surrounding us across our lives. If we switched spirits every day, I might wake up tomorrow morning a conservative. That hasn't happened to me or anyone I know.
You said the spirit cannot be observed by scientific methods.
So how do you know that having a different spirit would cause you to behave differently at all? Your behavior can be measured by scientific methods. You said there's no way to observe or measure the spirit. In which case, there's also no way to determine whether someone has the same spirit or a different spirit at any given time.
Also, why would a different spirit have to be a conservative? Why couldn't you have a series of spirits that have merely have similar orientations? It's not like you react exactly the same at all times. Maybe that's because you don't have the same spirit at all times.
The moment someone gets a bullet lodged in their brain and they suddenly completely switch up the way that they interpret the world, I'll be right there with you. But I've looked, and the only stories I can find are either "This injury affects his physical perceptions such that they act differently" (i.e. some brain damage keeps you from recognizing your spouse's face -- another argument for the spirit being limited to it's host body's perceptions), or "This injury affects his reactions to events, even though they still interpret them the same way" (i.e. my wife).
What do you make of schizophrenics and the effect of pharmaceutical treatments on them?
I don't know if there is any way for this to be a useful debate for you. There is a fairly wide gap between your personal construct of reality, and that of everyone arguing against you (for the most part). What can be real to you is simply not the same as what can be real to us. We have a very high threshold for a burden of proof. I'm is so high that I don't trust even my own memory (since our memory is not a very accurate way to recall the past).
Understand that, it should be no surprise that I(we) don't trust your memory either. You say you saw a moon goddess in one night. OK, I don't believe you. Prove it. No, no, prove with scientific evidence. Until you can do that, every single line you write trying to explain anything about your position, from our perspective, is just a bunch of conjecture you made up to justify your belief in an attempt to have metaphysical beliefs without cognitive dissonance (which, for someone with the same type of reality construct as me, is impossible).
I believe that you believe what you are saying, but still, even with the thought that you are no lying, I don't believe you. I can't. If you told me 15 years ago humans would one day land a rover on Mars using some crazy jet packs and a midflight pulley system I would said the same thing.
My point is, there is no reason for you to even try and explain all this stuff to a skeptic. Unless you have some tangible proof that meets our requirement for existence as is consistence with our reality construct(s), might as well save your text.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Is personal experience a good reason to believe in something? - absolutely. I am far more likely to believe in something that I actually experience than in some unsubstantiated claims.
My mom married a mormon and he tried to make mormons out of me and my siblings. I researched mormonism a lot and the more I learned the more distateful that religion was to me - such a long history of racism, polygamy, exploitation, etc...ugh. The story of Joseph Smith's life is pretty interesting too. But being interesting is not enough to make me a believer.
Is personal experience a good reason to believe in something? - absolutely. I am far more likely to believe in something that I actually experience than in some unsubstantiated claims.
This a good point. I would agree in most situations. However...
If I were walking in the woods one day and was convinced that saw a "Moon Goddess", I would immediately go get a psyche exam to see I have been having a psychotic episode. I would not just assume what I thought I had seen was real. Otherwise, why would we ever institutionalize a paranoid schizophrenic? His hallucinations are real to him, who are we to say he's not just seeing ghosts? Should he be taking his "personal experiences" at face value, or should he be analyzing what he's seeing deciding if it's real or not (obviously a paranoid schizophrenic probably can't do that effectively, but you get my point I hope).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
If I were walking in the woods one day and was convinced that saw a "Moon Goddess", I would immediately go get a psyche exam to see I have been having a psychotic episode. I would not just assume what I thought I had seen was real. Otherwise, why would we ever institutionalize a paranoid schizophrenic? His hallucinations are real to him, who are we to say he's not just seeing ghosts? Should he be taking his "personal experiences" at face value, or should he be analyzing what he's seeing deciding if it's real or not (obviously a paranoid schizophrenic probably can't do that effectively, but you get my point I hope).
This, of course, requires you to assume that whatever we see is the fixed point of reality, and that anything that deviates from what we normally see could be wrong.
Does this make the perspective of anything that doesn't share our method of seeing things questionable? Say, insects.
Or does it depend on the particular species, etc? Or perhaps on a variety of established method of seeing things that we consider fitting with reality?
But then doesn't it become a whee bit arbitrary?
Or could we simply just say anything we see under mind-altering drugs are questionable. But then again we naturally produce mind-altering drugs, and are subject to them all the time. Most obvious example being endorphin and the various chemicals that lead you to be infatuated with a single individual. It is sort of why people get really fixated on a single other when they're in love.
If I were walking in the woods one day and was convinced that saw a "Moon Goddess", I would immediately go get a psyche exam to see I have been having a psychotic episode.
Me too. I'd also ask for a brain scan to rule out tumors and a blood test to see if I have a mineral imbalance.
Keep in mind that I wasn't saying that if I saw a floating woman in the woods I would immediately believe that what I saw was real. What I said was that I was more likely to believe something that I experienced myself than in unsubstantiated claims. For example, if I see something surprising in the woods, I am more likely to believe it was there than if someone else claimed that they saw something surprising in the woods. This is doubly true if the person has a vested interest in getting me to believe (which is not the case here).
Life got all hectic around here all the sudden. I'll get back to this soon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I wasn't sleeping. I'm a beta-tester for Google Eyelids...I was just taking the opportunity to update my Facebook page." -- Morgan Freeman, accused of napping during a TV interview.
This, of course, requires you to assume that whatever we see is the fixed point of reality, and that anything that deviates from what we normally see could be wrong.
This seems like quite a fine thought process to have. I can assume that I'm seeing a fixed point in reality because I don't have any reason to believe otherwise. I can also assume same regarding what is seen.
Does this make the perspective of anything that doesn't share our method of seeing things questionable? Say, insects.
There are a lot of factors to consider here. Do insects see differently than us? They have more eyes, but we don’t know exactly how they perceive the world as far as I know (I could be very wrong, and probably am). Meaning, we don’t have a real image of what an insect sees as interpreted by it’s brain. We can assume that they “see” by gathering information from light sensitive cells in their eyes, which is interpreted by the brain in one way or another, just like us. But all our sense contributes to perception. You don’t have to even have eyes to get an accurate perception of your surroundings.
In the end I suppose I don’t really understand your question. How would the difference in perception between two species make one of those species’ perspectives “questionable” any more than all perception and perspective is for every animal aready?
Or does it depend on the particular species, etc? Or perhaps on a variety of established method of seeing things that we consider fitting with reality?
“Fitting with reality” is really just another way of saying “consistent and repeatable to such an extent as we are able to observe”. But I’m sure if we are at some point able to see through the eyes a fly, and we consistently see “something” that can been seen only by flies…well that would be incredibly interesting wouldn’t it.
The topic you have broached here is fascinating. Think of all the directions you have for contemplation. Think about the reality a cat lives in. It lives in a reality that is very limited. It doesn’t have the ability to perceive time like we do. Its reality isn’t decades or years or weeks or days. Its minutes. Cats have no real concept of time as we do. Does that mean time doesn’t exist or function as we know it does? No. Perspectives or perceptions from anything including humans is “questionable”.
The question is…HOW questionable is it? If I see a car driving down the road it would not be reasonable for me to assume the car is not real. I can walk to the car, and touch it. Then I can go get a friend and have him/her touch it and confirm that it’s real, so on and so forth.
But then doesn't it become a whee bit arbitrary?
How so? It seems strictly not arbitrary.
Or could we simply just say anything we see under mind-altering drugs are questionable. But then again we naturally produce mind-altering drugs, and are subject to them all the time. Most obvious example being endorphin and the various chemicals that lead you to be infatuated with a single individual. It is sort of why people get really fixated on a single other when they're in love.
This seems to support the idea of having a reasonable amount of distrust in perception. In a stressful situation the chemicals your body produces certainly have an effect on perception. This is why I would never get married before knowing someone for a at least a year. You never know if you’re just with them because we’re programmed to spread our DNA…. tricksie body chemistry.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You clearly think there's some evidence for it. Why do you believe in it otherwise?
How do you know a spirit interprets events in the physical world?
Also, why does each person having an interpretation mean that the spirit "only experiences the objective world through its host body"? Why can't it experience it in other ways as well?
So do those people have different spirits at different times?
You said the spirit cannot be observed by scientific methods.
So how do you know that having a different spirit would cause you to behave differently at all? Your behavior can be measured by scientific methods. You said there's no way to observe or measure the spirit. In which case, there's also no way to determine whether someone has the same spirit or a different spirit at any given time.
Also, why would a different spirit have to be a conservative? Why couldn't you have a series of spirits that have merely have similar orientations? It's not like you react exactly the same at all times. Maybe that's because you don't have the same spirit at all times.
What do you make of schizophrenics and the effect of pharmaceutical treatments on them?
I don't know if there is any way for this to be a useful debate for you. There is a fairly wide gap between your personal construct of reality, and that of everyone arguing against you (for the most part). What can be real to you is simply not the same as what can be real to us. We have a very high threshold for a burden of proof. I'm is so high that I don't trust even my own memory (since our memory is not a very accurate way to recall the past).
Understand that, it should be no surprise that I(we) don't trust your memory either. You say you saw a moon goddess in one night. OK, I don't believe you. Prove it. No, no, prove with scientific evidence. Until you can do that, every single line you write trying to explain anything about your position, from our perspective, is just a bunch of conjecture you made up to justify your belief in an attempt to have metaphysical beliefs without cognitive dissonance (which, for someone with the same type of reality construct as me, is impossible).
I believe that you believe what you are saying, but still, even with the thought that you are no lying, I don't believe you. I can't. If you told me 15 years ago humans would one day land a rover on Mars using some crazy jet packs and a midflight pulley system I would said the same thing.
My point is, there is no reason for you to even try and explain all this stuff to a skeptic. Unless you have some tangible proof that meets our requirement for existence as is consistence with our reality construct(s), might as well save your text.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
My mom married a mormon and he tried to make mormons out of me and my siblings. I researched mormonism a lot and the more I learned the more distateful that religion was to me - such a long history of racism, polygamy, exploitation, etc...ugh. The story of Joseph Smith's life is pretty interesting too. But being interesting is not enough to make me a believer.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
This a good point. I would agree in most situations. However...
If I were walking in the woods one day and was convinced that saw a "Moon Goddess", I would immediately go get a psyche exam to see I have been having a psychotic episode. I would not just assume what I thought I had seen was real. Otherwise, why would we ever institutionalize a paranoid schizophrenic? His hallucinations are real to him, who are we to say he's not just seeing ghosts? Should he be taking his "personal experiences" at face value, or should he be analyzing what he's seeing deciding if it's real or not (obviously a paranoid schizophrenic probably can't do that effectively, but you get my point I hope).
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
This, of course, requires you to assume that whatever we see is the fixed point of reality, and that anything that deviates from what we normally see could be wrong.
Does this make the perspective of anything that doesn't share our method of seeing things questionable? Say, insects.
Or does it depend on the particular species, etc? Or perhaps on a variety of established method of seeing things that we consider fitting with reality?
But then doesn't it become a whee bit arbitrary?
Or could we simply just say anything we see under mind-altering drugs are questionable. But then again we naturally produce mind-altering drugs, and are subject to them all the time. Most obvious example being endorphin and the various chemicals that lead you to be infatuated with a single individual. It is sort of why people get really fixated on a single other when they're in love.
Keep in mind that I wasn't saying that if I saw a floating woman in the woods I would immediately believe that what I saw was real. What I said was that I was more likely to believe something that I experienced myself than in unsubstantiated claims. For example, if I see something surprising in the woods, I am more likely to believe it was there than if someone else claimed that they saw something surprising in the woods. This is doubly true if the person has a vested interest in getting me to believe (which is not the case here).
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Wit and wisdom from my four-year-old son. Recommended for anyone who enjoys a good belly laugh.
This seems like quite a fine thought process to have. I can assume that I'm seeing a fixed point in reality because I don't have any reason to believe otherwise. I can also assume same regarding what is seen.
There are a lot of factors to consider here. Do insects see differently than us? They have more eyes, but we don’t know exactly how they perceive the world as far as I know (I could be very wrong, and probably am). Meaning, we don’t have a real image of what an insect sees as interpreted by it’s brain. We can assume that they “see” by gathering information from light sensitive cells in their eyes, which is interpreted by the brain in one way or another, just like us. But all our sense contributes to perception. You don’t have to even have eyes to get an accurate perception of your surroundings.
In the end I suppose I don’t really understand your question. How would the difference in perception between two species make one of those species’ perspectives “questionable” any more than all perception and perspective is for every animal aready?
“Fitting with reality” is really just another way of saying “consistent and repeatable to such an extent as we are able to observe”. But I’m sure if we are at some point able to see through the eyes a fly, and we consistently see “something” that can been seen only by flies…well that would be incredibly interesting wouldn’t it.
The topic you have broached here is fascinating. Think of all the directions you have for contemplation. Think about the reality a cat lives in. It lives in a reality that is very limited. It doesn’t have the ability to perceive time like we do. Its reality isn’t decades or years or weeks or days. Its minutes. Cats have no real concept of time as we do. Does that mean time doesn’t exist or function as we know it does? No. Perspectives or perceptions from anything including humans is “questionable”.
The question is…HOW questionable is it? If I see a car driving down the road it would not be reasonable for me to assume the car is not real. I can walk to the car, and touch it. Then I can go get a friend and have him/her touch it and confirm that it’s real, so on and so forth.
How so? It seems strictly not arbitrary.
This seems to support the idea of having a reasonable amount of distrust in perception. In a stressful situation the chemicals your body produces certainly have an effect on perception. This is why I would never get married before knowing someone for a at least a year. You never know if you’re just with them because we’re programmed to spread our DNA…. tricksie body chemistry.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great