Christianity

[Dontaskme]

It doesn’t even get to the question of whether or not non-material entities exist…and as you write, you’re actually demonstrating that they do, ironically.

Only as a concept in relation to it's equal and exact opposite mirror image. An image of the imageless is a consciously known conceptual object of knowing, there is no division there within that conscious knowing of what is known, since how can a 'concept known' be anything other than the knowing of it in the exact same instance of knowing.

There is no subject (unseen) without an object (seen) and vice versa. The 'looker' and the 'looked upon' exist together simultaneously in the exact same instance of knowing, the only knowing there is which is consciousness.

There is no such condition as a substance dualism...except within the artificial dream of separation. Reality as it is being presented is always a presentation, it is absolutely nondual in every instance.

All our stories about jesus and god are concepts that are the function of a physical brain braining and brought to life as real by a believing brain...it's all halucinations of a physcial brain...nothing mystical or divine about it at all.

.

[BigMike]

Even if there were things that were not made of matter, they couldn't affect material processes. "An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion at the same speed and in the same direction unless an unbalanced force acts on it."

Obviously, for your "free will" to have any effect on the things going on in your brain, it needs to exert some kind of force on them. However, there are only four things in the universe that can do that and, by extension, change what you think and do. Gravity is the first. Electromagnetism is the second. The weak nuclear force is number three, and the strong nuclear force is number four.

But all of these "forces" are just interactions between pieces of matter with similar properties with each other. Gravity can only interact with two things that both have mass. Electromagnetism only works between two things that have electric charge.

Since a non-material substance has neither mass, charge, nor any other physical property that could be used to interact with matter, it can have no impact on what you think and do, which means it can't control it. Your thoughts and actions are fully governed by the rules of physics.

This is a fact. Once you understand it fully, put it aside and never question it again. Instead, continue forward and attempt to address all the questions that these facts naturally raise. For example, "can moral responsibility exist without free will?" "What does freedom of expression mean?" "What does freedom to vote mean, if your vote is controlled by physics?" What changes do we have to do to society to ensure civility?

We have a long way to go, that much is clear. So let's get unstuck, and move on to these, and other, essential questions.

[Harry Baird]

Obviously, for your "free will" to have any effect on the things going on in your brain, it needs to exert some kind of force on them. However, there are only four things in the universe that can do that and, by extension, change what you think and do. Gravity is the first. Electromagnetism is the second. The weak nuclear force is number three, and the strong nuclear force is number four.

But all of these "forces" are just interactions between pieces of matter with similar properties with each other. Gravity can only interact with two things that both have mass. Electromagnetism only works between two things that have electric charge.

That's only what the scientific discipline of physics has discovered so far, deliberately excluding consciousness. It's not the be-all and end-all, because the scientific discipline of parapsychology, deliberately including consciousness, has discovered that the mind can do things that are not circumscribed by those four physical forces.

Since a non-material substance has neither mass, charge, nor any other physical property that could be used to interact with matter, it can have no impact on what you think and do, which means it can't control it. Your thoughts and actions are fully governed by the rules of physics.

Whether you like it or not, the mind can indeed interact with matter. There is no reason in any case to a priori accept a claim that a non-material substance cannot interact with a material one. As you allow with "substance", the non-material has some energetic basis, and thus there is a basis on which it can interact with material energy.

This is a fact.

Nope. It's an assertion - and a false one.

[BigMike]

That's only what the scientific discipline of physics has discovered so far, deliberately excluding consciousness. It's not the be-all and end-all, because the scientific discipline of parapsychology, deliberately including consciousness, has discovered that the mind can do things that are not circumscribed by those four physical forces.

I think you should at least explain what consciousness is and why Newton's first law is wrong. What is the correct law, in your view. That would earn you a multi-million-dollar Nobel Prize in physics for sure. Put up or shut up.

Whether you like it or not, the mind can indeed interact with matter. There is no reason in any case to a priori accept a claim that a non-material substance cannot interact with a material one. As you allow with "substance", the non-material has some energetic basis, and thus there is a basis on which it can interact with material energy.

Again, I look forward to your revision of Einstein's E=mc² law that that expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. I eagerly anticipate your paper detailing where Einstein erred and how your new "non-material" energy is the way to go.

However, this is the type of sorcery I have little patience for.

[Dontaskme]

A “mind” is cognitive. It’s a “brain” that’s the physical thing. But a “brain” without a “mind” in it is a dead lump of meat, just as a mind is ordinarily anchored to a brain.

No, it's not dead. You the one who is saying it's dead, have never experienced dead.
Dead/death is never the 'you's experience. So you cannot even tell yourself some physical thing is dead.

Your experience of the world comes to you through the signals called ''senses'' and this experience is a brain-generated representation, not the actual outside world. The external world is a Virtual Reality. Not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so. Just test it for yourself..CLOSE your eyes and notice the entire picture on the screen of your consciousness disappears. But also notice that your consciousness has not disappeared, it's just the images that have disappeared. OPEN your eyes and the images return, that is because when you close your eyes, the Aperture through which light passes is closed or open, the human eyeball is a physical camera.

What you are calling a mind is just a brain. No thing is dead IC ..only aliveness is your experience.


The brain of a human body has never experienced the actual world. The images of the external world are signals assembled in the brain into some kind of experience.

Reality always exists whether it is being observed as imaged seen...or not seen

All sensory experiences of the external world, your own body, and your own thoughts are just brain-generated representations.

There probably really IS a physical reality out there, and a physical self that houses your physical brain, but you've never experienced any of that directly.

What is a very convincing illusion is what you believe is real IC ...you know it is impossible for you to have made yourself, you wasn't there at your own conception instructing yourself on how to make a human being from scratch, why, because you are just a hologram of light...watching itself watching itself watching itself in myriad of different forms/formats...but it's all the same one light energy doing this.

The only thing you know is....YOU - DO - NOT - KNOW

You can never know in concepts how the universe actually works. The underlying construction of the universe, is forever beyond the ken of science beyond one's range of knowledge or understanding. You are the knowing that cannot be known.

That is the only understanding there is to understand.

[Harry Baird]

BigMike, I'm not claiming that there is anything wrong with the laws of physics as we currently know them - just that they are incomplete, and evidently so, because minds can do things that don't seem to be supported by those laws as we currently know them. You apparently aren't interested in the evidence for this, because you didn't inquire into it, but it exists - in copious amounts.

Adding to my response to your first post:

You surely accept the reality of force at a distance, since that is how all of the four forces you listed act. So, it's established that one substance need not be in direct contact with another to exert a force on it.

Now, you claim that only substances with like properties (e.g., mass, charge, etc) can interact, but, while this might be what physics has discovered so far, it is not logically necessary, is it? It is logically possible that a substance with one set of properties can exert a force - at a distance - on a substance with a different set of properties, right? And since many, many parapsychological studies have discovered that this is the case (i.e., that the immaterial substance of mind affects the material substance of physical matter-energy), then it is not only logically possible, but actually the case in our world.

You obviously don't like that, but your case against it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

As for what consciousness is, I don't know how I can explain that beyond pointing to its dictionary definition. You're conscious (presumably! You might actually be an advanced chatbot!), so you have as much direct knowledge of it as I do...

See what you think of this though: my understanding arrived at over the years is that consciousness can be viewed from two perspectives; inner/subjective, and outer/objective. It is a substance with form (the outer/objective view) which supports experience (the inner/subjective view) directly correlated with that form.

I'm not sure if that answers your question adequately, but hopefully it's of some use.

[BigMike]

BigMike, I'm not claiming that there is anything wrong with the laws of physics as we currently know them - just that they are incomplete, and evidently so, because minds can do things that don't seem to be supported by those laws as we currently know them. You apparently aren't interested in the evidence for this, because you didn't inquire into it, but it exists - in copious amounts.

Mention one thing that the mind can do to the physical world, please.

Adding to my response to your first post:

You surely accept the reality of force at a distance, since that is how all of the four forces you listed act. So, it's established that one substance need not be in direct contact with another to exert a force on it.

Of course, in the sense of the four fundamental interactions.

Now, you claim that only substances with like properties (e.g., mass, charge, etc) can interact, but, while this might be what physics has discovered so far, it is not logically necessary, is it? It is logically possible that a substance with one set of properties can exert a force - at a distance - on a substance with a different set of properties, right?

Be specific. Do you mean to imply that an electromagnetic field is capable of exerting gravitational force? I don't think so.

And since many, many parapsychological studies have discovered that this is the case (i.e., that the immaterial substance of mind affects the material substance of physical matter-energy), then it is not only logically possible, but actually the case in our world.

Aha. Here we go to voodoo-land.

You obviously don't like that, but your case against it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Have you heard of James Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Well, he debunked hundreds of "paranormal" frauds. Not a single one of them proved a damn thing.

See what you think of this though: my understanding arrived at over the years is that consciousness can be viewed from two perspectives; inner/subjective, and outer/objective. It is a substance with form (the outer/objective view) which supports experience (the inner/subjective view) directly correlated with that form.

OK. What can it do? Does it do anything to the real world in which it resides?

[Harry Baird]

Mention one thing that the mind can do to the physical world, please.

The irony is that, as a mind, you are affecting the physical world in typing out and sending that request!

I'm glad, though, that you've indicated an openness to the evidence. Here's a good summary of it:

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/arti ... s-research

Now, you claim that only substances with like properties (e.g., mass, charge, etc) can interact, but, while this might be what physics has discovered so far, it is not logically necessary, is it? It is logically possible that a substance with one set of properties can exert a force - at a distance - on a substance with a different set of properties, right?

Be specific. Do you mean to imply that an electromagnetic field is capable of exerting gravitational force? I don't think so.

I mean that, as you quote of me:

[M]any, many parapsychological studies have discovered that [it] is the case [...] that the immaterial substance of mind affects the material substance of physical matter-energy

There's nothing that logically precludes this possibility.

You respond with:

Aha. Here we go to voodoo-land.

Oh dear. No, voodoo-land is "Everything's physical, there's no free will, and I refuse to examine any evidence which challenges my beliefs to that effect."

Have you heard of James Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

Of course. It's irrelevant, because genuine scientists in parapsychology have obtained highly, highly significant results which are immune to the MDC, which doesn't address them in any way, and which wasn't even a scientific endeavour in the first place, but rather a publicity stunt for the rhetorical purposes of atheist-materialist-skeptic types like yourself. Further, James Randi began with the conviction that the paranormal was definitively false, and he manipulated potentially genuine contenders in ways which disadvantaged them so as to maintain his prior conviction, the disproof of which he was immune to. At least one parapsychologist applied to the MDC to conduct an extensive scientific study under MDC conditions, but while the application was initially accepted, Randi ultimately backed out. He was a bad actor, not a genuine seeker after truth. Finally: of course there are going to be frauds and delusional actors in this field - and plenty of them - but that doesn't disprove the genuine article.

[Harry Baird]

A clarification re this:

The irony is that, as a mind, you are affecting the physical world in typing out and sending that request!

I'm glad, though, that you've indicated an openness to the evidence. Here's a good summary of it:

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/arti ... s-research

My view is that while PK as per that evidence generally has a small effect size, and thus is in a sense not entirely reliable, the direct effects of mind-on-brain, and even mind-on-body, are obviously much more reliable, or we wouldn't be able to achieve so much so assuredly.

[phyllo]

I wonder why we have physical bodies at all if they are not needed for interaction with physical reality.

Why eyes if we can see without them?

I wonder why there are lots of physical people and not many non-physical spirits in the world.

[BigMike]

Mention one thing that the mind can do to the physical world, please.

The irony is that, as a mind, you are affecting the physical world in typing out and sending that request!

Sending and typing requests does not require mental capacity. My computer can perform this task. Please try once more: Mention one thing that the mind can do to the physical world. Can your mind, for instance, move a single atom?

I'm glad, though, that you've indicated an openness to the evidence. Here's a good summary of it:
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/arti ... s-research

You have become ridiculous. Seriously citing the Society for Psychical Research as proof of psychokinesis? Seriously?

[M]any, many parapsychological studies have discovered that [it] is the case [...] that the immaterial substance of mind affects the material substance of physical matter-energy

There's nothing that logically precludes this possibility.

There is absolutely no evidence that ANY "immaterial substance of mind affects the material substance of physical matter-energy." Zilch! Nada!

You respond with:

Aha. Here we go to voodoo-land.

Oh dear. No, voodoo-land is "Everything's physical, there's no free will, and I refuse to examine any evidence which challenges my beliefs to that effect."

How often must I request that you supply the evidence that you accuse me of disregarding?

Have you heard of James Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

Of course. It's irrelevant, because genuine scientists in parapsychology have obtained highly, highly significant results which are immune to the MDC, which doesn't address them in any way, and which wasn't even a scientific endeavour in the first place, but rather a publicity stunt for the rhetorical purposes of atheist-materialist-skeptic types like yourself. Further, James Randi began with the conviction that the paranormal was definitively false, and he manipulated potentially genuine contenders in ways which disadvantaged them so as to maintain his prior conviction, the disproof of which he was immune to. At least one parapsychologist applied to the MDC to conduct an extensive scientific study under MDC conditions, but while the application was initially accepted, Randi ultimately backed out. He was a bad actor, not a genuine seeker after truth. Finally: of course there are going to be frauds and delusional actors in this field - and plenty of them - but that doesn't disprove the genuine article.

"Genuine scientists in parapsychology"?!? Please. I would be quite concerned about the condition of my brain if I were you. Your neural connections are obviously severely compromised. You should endeavor to repair as much of the damage to your brain as possible. I would begin by studying science and then cross my fingers. Otherwise, your life will be tragically wasted.

[BigMike]

I wonder why we have physical bodies at all if they are not needed for interaction with physical reality.

Why eyes if we can see without them?

I wonder why there are lots of physical people and not many non-physical spirits in the world.

Good questions, indeed. And fair, too.

[Harry Baird]

I wonder why we have physical bodies at all if they are not needed for interaction with physical reality.

Why eyes if we can see without them?

It's a good question, phyllo, and one that I don't have a good answer to. This physical reality is a curious place.

I wonder why there are lots of physical people and not many non-physical spirits in the world.

How have you come to the conclusion that there are "not many" non-physical spirits in the world? Many people experience them on an ongoing basis. It's perfectly plausible, then, that there are plenty of them around, even if most people don't perceive them.

[Belinda]

Mention one thing that the mind can do to the physical world, please.

The irony is that, as a mind, you are affecting the physical world in typing out and sending that request!

Sending and typing requests does not require mental capacity. My computer can perform this task. Please try once more: Mention one thing that the mind can do to the physical world. Can your mind, for instance, move a single atom?

I'm glad, though, that you've indicated an openness to the evidence. Here's a good summary of it:
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/arti ... s-research

You have become ridiculous. Seriously citing the Society for Psychical Research as proof of psychokinesis? Seriously?

[M]any, many parapsychological studies have discovered that [it] is the case [...] that the immaterial substance of mind affects the material substance of physical matter-energy

There's nothing that logically precludes this possibility.

There is absolutely no evidence that ANY "immaterial substance of mind affects the material substance of physical matter-energy." Zilch! Nada!

You respond with:

Aha. Here we go to voodoo-land.

Oh dear. No, voodoo-land is "Everything's physical, there's no free will, and I refuse to examine any evidence which challenges my beliefs to that effect."

How often must I request that you supply the evidence that you accuse me of disregarding?

Have you heard of James Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.

Of course. It's irrelevant, because genuine scientists in parapsychology have obtained highly, highly significant results which are immune to the MDC, which doesn't address them in any way, and which wasn't even a scientific endeavour in the first place, but rather a publicity stunt for the rhetorical purposes of atheist-materialist-skeptic types like yourself. Further, James Randi began with the conviction that the paranormal was definitively false, and he manipulated potentially genuine contenders in ways which disadvantaged them so as to maintain his prior conviction, the disproof of which he was immune to. At least one parapsychologist applied to the MDC to conduct an extensive scientific study under MDC conditions, but while the application was initially accepted, Randi ultimately backed out. He was a bad actor, not a genuine seeker after truth. Finally: of course there are going to be frauds and delusional actors in this field - and plenty of them - but that doesn't disprove the genuine article.

"Genuine scientists in parapsychology"?!? Please. I would be quite concerned about the condition of my brain if I were you. Your neural connections are obviously severely compromised. You should endeavor to repair as much of the damage to your brain as possible. I would begin by studying science and then cross my fingers. Otherwise, your life will be tragically wasted.

Parapsychology is by its nature peculiarly hard to study by set -up experiments.The last I heard is that the unit at Edinburgh University is studying anecdotes.

[BigMike]

A clarification re this:

The irony is that, as a mind, you are affecting the physical world in typing out and sending that request!

I'm glad, though, that you've indicated an openness to the evidence. Here's a good summary of it:

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/arti ... s-research

My view is that while PK as per that evidence generally has a small effect size, and thus is in a sense not entirely reliable, the direct effects of mind-on-brain, and even mind-on-body, are obviously much more reliable, or we wouldn't be able to achieve so much so assuredly.

So you believe that your mind directly influences the atoms in your brain and body? I assume you mean it accomplishes this without requiring any of the four fundamental interactions, otherwise the mind would have to be physical itself, of course.