prominent neuroscience folk who don't believe mind is just the product of brain activity

[Belinda]

So what, Henry, IS your "kind of deism" ?

The one where the Creator, a person, intended to create, not the one where, as you say the deist deity is not capable of intentions.

I understand.

Did I say that? If I may recapitulate, The key difference between a deist and a theist is the theist trusts God the creator to intervene whenever He decides to do so: whereas the deist God does not intervene in history.

That means (for a deist ) that the advent of Jesus happened as a result of historical circumstances and not as a result of God's direct intervention.

[Flannel Jesus]

New thread, continued from The Democrat Party Hates America thread...

First up: neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield.

I won't post a bio for him (he's not obscure, just google him).

He wrote Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain: https://ia801509.us.archive.org/33/item ... ind%20.pdf

"It will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain.... Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not....To me, it seems more and more reasonable to suggest that the mind may be a distinct and different essence"

Next post: neuroscientist John Eccles

Cool,

but you can always find individuals in any field of expertise who believe one thing or another. I'm curious about the statistical distribution. How many believe this? How many believe the myriad other beliefs one might have about this topic? That's more interesting than cherry picking individuals.#

That information might not be easily available though.

[henry quirk]

Did I say that?

You did. Mebbe you meant to say the deist deity is not capable of interventions?

Even if you did, you'd still be off the mark. Most strains of deism (except for the pandeism types) say God chooses to not intervene, not that He is incapable of intervention.

That means (for a deist ) that the advent of Jesus happened as a result of historical circumstances and not as a result of God's direct intervention.

Not sure why we're bringin' Jesus into the mix but: okay.

[henry quirk]

That's more interesting than cherry picking individuals.

Sure, but that's not what the thread was about. In another thread Belinda said most neutroscentists believed mind was nuthin' more than brain activity. I disagreed and said some do believe that but a great many do not. This thread was to be a list of all the prominent folks who don't.

But, as often happens in the place, the thread was hijacked, and Belinda didn't/doesn't seem to give a flip now anyway, so I stopped.

[henry quirk]

Last call, biggs...

*

None.

Surely, those Deists who do believe in an afterlife, who do believe in immortality and salvation are not going to agree with that. It would be like particular Christians claiming that how you interpret the teachings of Christ, or what you say and believe about Him doesn't matter come Judgement Day. Or so it seems to me.

Unless, perhaps, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "none".

No, you got it. In the absence of proof everyone accepts, there will be disagreement. As I say: people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief. Even between strains of Christianity there's disagreement. The whole saved by faith alone vs saved by works thing is an example. So, it really does make no difference except to the folks invested in the argument.

Same, in my view, regarding free will. Only at least the brain scientists have actual brains in which to explore this using the scientific method. Still, there is no consensus or resolution regarding human autonomy among them. Or none that I'm aware of. And philosophers by and large "establish" [its] existence in "worlds of words".

In other words: What difference does it make how you interpret free will, what you say about it and/or what you believe about it if you cannot establish its actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None. It makes no difference at all.

That would only make sense, in my view, if scientists and philosophers continue to be stumped regarding both the human brain's capacity and its limitations. In fact, that is why so many religionists come back to a God, the God, their God in the first place. That is their own explanation for free will. Though, sure, others take a leap of faith [philosophically] to free will. We don't know if we have it but we live our lives acting as though we do. Because, in fact, that may well be the case.

Which is why it does makes sense to say It makes no difference at all. Scientists and philosophers are stumped and neither seem to be movin' forward in their investigations. So, we're all left with our leaps of faith.
 

In fact, given this...

"Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous."  wiki

"Deists hold varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some Deists, like Thomas Paine, believed in the 'probability' of an immortal soul, while others, like Anthony Collins, doubted or denied it. Deists who believe in an afterlife generally believe that all humanity can achieve eternal life through virtuous behavior, essentially advocating a 'works-righteousness' approach."    A.I.

...what on Earth is in fact true about Him?

As fact: no one can say.

And yet with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, that's just not good enough for those like IC. On the contrary, he [and so many others] seem adamant that only True Christians can interpret, say and believe what they do about God/Jesus Christ and expect to actually be saved rather than left behind.

Okay.

Also, from AI:
"Deism, with its emphasis on reason and natural law, doesn't offer a single answer to the gun control debate. Deists would likely approach the issue based on their individual interpretations of reason and natural law, potentially leading to diverse perspectives."

Then this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

"Christian deism is a standpoint in the philosophy of religion stemming from Christianity and Deism. It can often refer to Deists who believe in the moral teachings—but not the divinity—of Jesus."  wiki

Yes, people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief.

It just seems to me that if the Deist God did create men and women to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" that would not -- could not? -- be interpreted reasonably as meaning whatever each of us as individuals comes to believe is reasonable and natural. In other words, the part I root existentially in dasein given a No God world.

And still interpreting is what we do, deists I mean. Proofs about God's nature and purpose are not accessible today, and the evidences are subject to interpretation. Nature is not fully understood and reason is finite and sometimes flawed.

Also, the part where some religious denominations claim their own God is omniscient. That in and of itself is seen as profoundly problematic by many in regard to free will.

Yeah. Mannie, for example, has his workaround on that, I have mine, and someone else will offer a variation of our workarounds or sumthin' quite different from either.

[Flannel Jesus]

That's more interesting than cherry picking individuals.

Sure, but that's not what the thread was about. In another thread Belinda said most neutroscentists believed mind was nuthin' more than brain activity. I disagreed and said some do believe that but a great many do not. This thread was to be a list of all the prominent folks who don't.

But, as often happens in the place, the thread was hijacked, and Belinda didn't/doesn't seem to give a flip now anyway, so I stopped.

We don't need a list of prominent people either way.

It's useful to know
(a) that among experts there's a wide variety of views, so no expert consensus, and
(b) I think it's useful to know what the statistical distribution of views are

The most important use of (a) is a rebuke to anybody who says "well OBVIOUSLY the answer to consciousness is so-and-so", or alternatively "well OBVIOUSLY it can't be so-and-so." Whatever you're saying, if it's not obvious to the experts then it's not really that obvious, is it?

Like people saying "OBVIOUSLY compatibilism isn't the right take on free will", aka ImmanuelCan (is that his name?). Maybe it's obvious to IC but being obvious to him isn't very useful to the rest of us, and the fact that the majority of professional philosophers are compatibilists weighs against the supposed obviousness of it. Don't rest on it being obvious, make a real case.

Expert consensus isn't "the thing that decides what's true", but it kinda can be a limit on what you can possibly call "obvious". If you're casually dismissing an idea that the majority of experts agree with, or casually saying something is obvious that the majority of experts disagree with, that's a strong signal that you're doing a Dunning Kreuger. You can obviously reasonably disagree with expert consensus, but if you're not doing a Dunning Kreuger, it shouldn't be casual at all. It should be well thought out, and deeply and conscientiously argued for.

[Belinda]

Did I say that?

You did. Mebbe you meant to say the deist deity is not capable of interventions?

Even if you did, you'd still be off the mark. Most strains of deism (except for the pandeism types) say God chooses to not intervene, not that He is incapable of intervention.

That means (for a deist ) that the advent of Jesus happened as a result of historical circumstances and not as a result of God's direct intervention.

Not sure why we're bringin' Jesus into the mix but: okay.

That's new to me, and I accept.

[Belinda]

Last call, biggs...

*

None.

Surely, those Deists who do believe in an afterlife, who do believe in immortality and salvation are not going to agree with that. It would be like particular Christians claiming that how you interpret the teachings of Christ, or what you say and believe about Him doesn't matter come Judgement Day. Or so it seems to me.

Unless, perhaps, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "none".

No, you got it. In the absence of proof everyone accepts, there will be disagreement. As I say: people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief. Even between strains of Christianity there's disagreement. The whole saved by faith alone vs saved by works thing is an example. So, it really does make no difference except to the folks invested in the argument.

Same, in my view, regarding free will. Only at least the brain scientists have actual brains in which to explore this using the scientific method. Still, there is no consensus or resolution regarding human autonomy among them. Or none that I'm aware of. And philosophers by and large "establish" [its] existence in "worlds of words".

In other words: What difference does it make how you interpret free will, what you say about it and/or what you believe about it if you cannot establish its actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None. It makes no difference at all.

That would only make sense, in my view, if scientists and philosophers continue to be stumped regarding both the human brain's capacity and its limitations. In fact, that is why so many religionists come back to a God, the God, their God in the first place. That is their own explanation for free will. Though, sure, others take a leap of faith [philosophically] to free will. We don't know if we have it but we live our lives acting as though we do. Because, in fact, that may well be the case.

Which is why it does makes sense to say It makes no difference at all. Scientists and philosophers are stumped and neither seem to be movin' forward in their investigations. So, we're all left with our leaps of faith.
 

In fact, given this...

"Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous."  wiki

"Deists hold varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some Deists, like Thomas Paine, believed in the 'probability' of an immortal soul, while others, like Anthony Collins, doubted or denied it. Deists who believe in an afterlife generally believe that all humanity can achieve eternal life through virtuous behavior, essentially advocating a 'works-righteousness' approach."    A.I.

...what on Earth is in fact true about Him?

As fact: no one can say.

And yet with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, that's just not good enough for those like IC. On the contrary, he [and so many others] seem adamant that only True Christians can interpret, say and believe what they do about God/Jesus Christ and expect to actually be saved rather than left behind.

Okay.

Also, from AI:
"Deism, with its emphasis on reason and natural law, doesn't offer a single answer to the gun control debate. Deists would likely approach the issue based on their individual interpretations of reason and natural law, potentially leading to diverse perspectives."

Then this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

"Christian deism is a standpoint in the philosophy of religion stemming from Christianity and Deism. It can often refer to Deists who believe in the moral teachings—but not the divinity—of Jesus."  wiki

Yes, people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief.

It just seems to me that if the Deist God did create men and women to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" that would not -- could not? -- be interpreted reasonably as meaning whatever each of us as individuals comes to believe is reasonable and natural. In other words, the part I root existentially in dasein given a No God world.

And still interpreting is what we do, deists I mean. Proofs about God's nature and purpose are not accessible today, and the evidences are subject to interpretation. Nature is not fully understood and reason is finite and sometimes flawed.

Also, the part where some religious denominations claim their own God is omniscient. That in and of itself is seen as profoundly problematic by many in regard to free will.

Yeah. Mannie, for example, has his workaround on that, I have mine, and someone else will offer a variation of our workarounds or sumthin' quite different from either.

*Free will does happen. However a more honest name for it is random choice.

* Afterlife (life after death) is not necessarily a religious belief. I.e. you don't have to believe in God to believe in afterlife; and you don't have to believe in afterlife to believe in God.

[henry quirk]

We don't need a list of prominent people either way.

I agree.

[henry quirk]

Okay.

[henry quirk]

*Free will does happen. However a more honest name for it is random choice.

Can't disagree more.

* Afterlife (life after death) is not necessarily a religious belief. I.e. you don't have to believe in God to believe in afterlife; and you don't have to believe in afterlife to believe in God.

Okay.

[iambiguous]

Surely, those Deists who do believe in an afterlife, who do believe in immortality and salvation are not going to agree with that. It would be like particular Christians claiming that how you interpret the teachings of Christ, or what you say and believe about Him doesn't matter come Judgement Day. Or so it seems to me.

Unless, perhaps, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "none".

   No, you got it. In the absence of proof everyone accepts, there will be disagreement. As I say: people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief. Even between strains of Christianity there's disagreement. The whole saved by faith alone vs saved by works thing is an example. So, it really does make no difference except to the folks invested in the argument.

Once again, let me remind you of what is at stake here for most religionists and for some Deists:

1] moral commandments here and now
2] immortality and salvation there and then

Are you telling me though it's perfectly okay for these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- to disagree about God? 

If so, do you [or anyone else here] happen to know where the lines are drawn? What's more or less okay to have disagreements about, and what's not? What behaviors are more or less okay, and what behaviors are not? Either the part about being "saved" is something mere mortals invented to comfort and console themselves in the face of death/oblivion, or one or another rendition of Judgment day is the real deal and mere mortals had better be able to cut the mustard...or else.  

Same, in my view, regarding free will. Only at least the brain scientists have actual brains in which to explore this using the scientific method. Still, there is no consensus or resolution regarding human autonomy among them. Or none that I'm aware of. And philosophers by and large "establish" [its] existence in "worlds of words".

In other words: What difference does it make how you interpret free will, what you say about it and/or what you believe about it if you cannot establish its actual existence beyond a leap of faith?

None. It makes no difference at all.

That would only make sense, in my view, if scientists and philosophers continue to be stumped regarding both the human brain's capacity and its limitations. In fact, that is why so many religionists come back to a God, the God, their God in the first place. That is their own explanation for free will. Though, sure, others take a leap of faith [philosophically] to free will. We don't know if we have it but we live our lives acting as though we do. Because, in fact, that may well be the case.

Which is why it does makes sense to say It makes no difference at all. Scientists and philosophers are stumped and neither seem to be movin' forward in their investigations. So, we're all left with our leaps of faith.

We'll, not counting those like Immanuel Can, right? He seems adamant that unless you and I come to accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior, it's burn baby burn. Me, I've tried in vain to get him to discuss the part where WLC and the RF folks insist one can abandon the leap of faith [and even the Bible] and actually know that the Christian God does in fact exist. Why? Because the scientific and historical facts are there to nail this down.

In other words, if a God, the God does in fact exist, it's still got to be the...right God? 
 

In fact, given this...

"Different Deists had different beliefs about the immortality of the soul, about the existence of Hell and damnation to punish the wicked, and the existence of Heaven to reward the virtuous."  wiki

"Deists hold varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some Deists, like Thomas Paine, believed in the 'probability' of an immortal soul, while others, like Anthony Collins, doubted or denied it. Deists who believe in an afterlife generally believe that all humanity can achieve eternal life through virtuous behavior, essentially advocating a 'works-righteousness' approach."    A.I.

...what on Earth is in fact true about Him?

  As fact: no one can say.

And yet with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, that's just not good enough for those like IC. On the contrary, he [and so many others] seem adamant that only True Christians can interpret, say and believe what they do about God/Jesus Christ and expect to actually be saved rather than left behind.

Okay.

Okay? No parts at all above not okay?

Also, from AI: "Deism, with its emphasis on reason and natural law, doesn't offer a single answer to the gun control debate. Deists would likely approach the issue based on their individual interpretations of reason and natural law, potentially leading to diverse perspectives."

Then this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

"Christian deism is a standpoint in the philosophy of religion stemming from Christianity and Deism. It can often refer to Deists who believe in the moral teachings—but not the divinity—of Jesus."  wiki

Yes, people who share a belief, can, often do, disagree on the details of that belief.

It just seems to me that if the Deist God did create men and women to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" that would not -- could not? -- be interpreted reasonably as meaning whatever each of us as individuals comes to believe is reasonable and natural. In other words, the part I root existentially in dasein given a No God world.

And still interpreting is what we do, deists I mean. Proofs about God's nature and purpose are not accessible today, and the evidences are subject to interpretation. Nature is not fully understood and reason is finite and sometimes flawed.[/b]

All I can say is if interpretation revolves around those "dangling conversations" like "what did the movie mean?" or "Is Trump a good president?" or "Is modern art really art at all?" that's one thing...but if it revolves around which God has the capacity to save our souls...?

[henry quirk]

Are you telling me though it's perfectly okay for these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- to disagree about God? 

I don't know if it's okay in some ultimate, metaphysical sense. I only know know, here and now, it happens.

If so, do you [or anyone else here] happen to know where the lines are drawn? What's more or less okay to have disagreements about, and what's not? What behaviors are more or less okay, and what behaviors are not? Either the part about being "saved" is something mere mortals invented to comfort and console themselves in the face of death/oblivion, or one or another rendition of Judgment day is the real deal and mere mortals had better be able to cut the mustard...or else.  

It all appears to be on the table: what people believe about God, about right and wrong, about the afterlife and final rewards and punishments, and on and on. As I say: proofs are not currently available and evidences are open to interpretation.

We'll, not counting those like Immanuel Can, right?

Best I can tell: Mannie is in the same boat as the rest of us.

He seems adamant that unless you and I come to accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior, it's burn baby burn. Me, I've tried in vain to get him to discuss the part where WLC and the RF folks insist one can abandon the leap of faith [and even the Bible] and actually know that the Christian God does in fact exist. Why? Because the scientific and historical facts are there to nail this down.

We're all adamant about our beliefs. I can't help you with your Mannie problem.

In other words, if a God, the God does in fact exist, it's still got to be the...right God? 

Obviously if God exists then He is as He is no matter what anyone thinks or believes. Mebbe Mannie is right. Or mebbe I'm right. Or mebbe Belinda is right. Or mebbe you are. Or mebbe we're all wrong.
 

Okay? No parts at all above not okay?

I say okay cuz there's nuthin' else for me to say. I know you want fulminating but I can't give you that.

All I can say is if interpretation revolves around those "dangling conversations" like "what did the movie mean?" or "Is Trump a good president?" or "Is modern art really art at all?" that's one thing...but if it revolves around which God has the capacity to save our souls...?

Well, interpretation is, as i say, all we have.

[Belinda]

Where is that famous American pragmatism.
Which belief concerning mind is more likely to result in peace and prosperity?

Henry, I am not adamant about my beliefs which I adapt or change according to new ideas and new evidences. It's sign of stupidity and conceit to be adamant about one's beliefs. I am afraid I may sound adamant about my beliefs but it would be impractical if we all wrote preambles to the effect that the opinions that follow are pro tem.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Where is that famous American pragmatism.
Which belief concerning mind is more likely to result in peace and prosperity?

Henry, I am not adamant about my beliefs which I adapt or change according to new ideas and new evidences. It's sign of stupidity and conceit to be adamant about one's beliefs. I am afraid I may sound adamant about my beliefs but it would be impractical if we all wrote preambles to the effect that the opinions that follow are pro tem.

I'm only adamant about my knowledge beliefs. Is that stupid and conceited? I know that nature is eternal and infinite and purposeless. No preamble necessary.