« Greatest comment about the RSSB guru ever. Behold! | Main | Our minds collaborate in the creation of the world »

June 02, 2020

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It is good to form questions. And it's equally good to answer them. In the effort to answer them, through measurement, through witness, through evidence, this also guides our questions. We are interested in questions that can be answered, not questions we like that cannot.
To ask the same questions over and over that cannot be answered as a context for smaller questions that can has purpose to keep our investigations going. But to ask questions rhetorically over and over to imply a particular view is wrong makes no sense. That's just argumentation and not investigation. Investigation requires an open, inquisitive mind. Argumentation requires a different, argumentative, Mind set.

The author argues against the concept of a free floating mind apart from the brain. But that dichotomy is old and out of date. Both states, physical and noncorporeal, are out of date. They lack the subtlety that science has demonstrated is in fact this reality.

It's all physical. And what we call physical contains mysterious fields of energy whose actions were once invisible and regarded as incorporeal. And the corporeal matter is made up of fields of energy and is mostly empty space. It is the pattern that distinguishes matter of one type from another. It is the "intelligence", the design, the arrangement of the elements that makes biology. And the intelligence of the pattern or design of that biology that makes intelligence.

That's how reality is. What you imagine isn't incorporeal. A wifi signal isn't incorporal. The image you see on your computer, though it is zeros and ones in one sense, is also a lovely photo of a sunset decoded properly. You can say it is just zeros and ones. But the photo is an image of something that is real. You just won't find that reality inside the laptop, however carefully you dissect it.

“'Germ-free' mice have no microbes living in their gut, and as a result show altered levels of serotonin in the brain and lower levels of anxious behavior.”

*******
A fascinating tidbit indeed. Makes sense as we have more serotonin receptors in our gut.
“Although serotonin is well known as a brain neurotransmitter, it is estimated that 90 percent of the body's serotonin is made in the digestive tract.”

So, the below referenced article (my grammar sucks) isn’t as gluey sciencey but it’s relevant.

FYI, “sciencey” is a common term used in the Science community—they use it to avoid describing things in detail to layman or idiots. They just say, blah, blah, blah and you know, “sciencey stuff”.

Oh, and “gluey” is my term for brain matter.

********
Article:
What do we mean by meaning? Science can help with that

https://theconversation.com/what-do-we-mean-by-meaning-science-can-help-with-that-113269

Excerpt:
“Cognitive scientist W. Tecumseh Fitch, an expert in the evolution of human language, says what separates humans from other species is our ability to interpret things in a tree-like structure.

Our brains are built to group things and to arrange them into hierarchies, and not just in grammar. This opens up a whole universe of meanings that we are able to extract from language and other sources of information.

But complex structure isn’t all there is to meaning. If you’ve seen any computer programming you know that computers can also handle this kind of complex grammar. That doesn’t mean computers find it meaningful.

Research into human brains is trying to find out how we find information significant. We attach emotional and semantic weight to the utterances we speak and hear. The neuroscience of working memory may hold some clues.”

Humans are basically just made of of air and energy waves. We’re not “solid”. So, yikes... rethinking everything with my air head energy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/11/03/how-the-human-body-creates-electromagnetic-fields/

Here’s an excerpt from the article linked above:

“How can I punch you, if your face, and indeed my hand, are just made up of fuzzy balls?

There’s no concept of “solid” at this level — so why should my hand make contact with your face?

The answer lies in the electric field.

Every atom has its own electric field, and when you put two atoms close together, they can mess around with the electric field of the other.

In some circumstances, this “messing around” is what leads to atomic bonding — the atoms and their electrons “find a way” to coexist in a way that minimizes their mutual energy, and they resist being pulled apart. This is what we interpret as an atomic bond.”


The Hippies Were Right: It's All about Vibrations, Man!

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-hippies-were-right-its-all-about-vibrations-man/

This is an awesome article, BTW. Here’s an excerpt but take time to read the full article if you can.

“All things in our universe are constantly in motion, vibrating. Even objects that appear to be stationary are in fact vibrating, oscillating, resonating, at various frequencies. Resonance is a type of motion, characterized by oscillation between two states. And ultimately all matter is just vibrations of various underlying fields.

An interesting phenomenon occurs when different vibrating things/processes come into proximity: they will often start, after a little time, to vibrate together at the same frequency. They “sync up,” sometimes in ways that can seem mysterious. This is described today as the phenomenon of spontaneous self-organization.
Examining this phenomenon leads to potentially deep insights about the nature of consciousness and about the universe more generally.“

—S

If Big Data could spontaneously self organize then humans would be in serious trouble. But it can’t. For now.

And now I’m gonna go sign up for a class or something... clearly spending too much time here. 😐

Darwin’s theory of natural selection is about as solid a theory as science has.

It is the atheist mantra for explaining how we humans, and all other life, have developed.

It’s also been described as survival of the fittest, of nature red in tooth and claw. While this may be an oversimplification, one only had to ventute into nature or the wild to see how it’s the young, old, injured, sick or weakest of the herd that are targeted. There’s no fair play or morals involved here.

And yet we as humans beings, the very pinnacle of this cruel or even indifferent evolutionary law (at least here on planet earth), seem to have instead developed almost completely the opposite qualities.

I mean if this law is so fundanental to our development, would it not be more natural for our personalities to also be like that and for us exhibit these cruel tendencies more than any other animal.

The weak doves should have been weeded out by the strong hawks. Yet this is not how our societies and morals are structured. Why?

Our strongest impulse and aspirations unless you are a psychopath or a thug or ape, is not to be the strongest or to kill and harm others. Instead we develop entire philipsophies and religions like Buddhism trying to prevent suffering.

Preventing suffering is heretical from an atheist Darwinian viewpoint. I’m not saying someone who believes in Darwin’s theory is cruel, but I am asking if this is the process that determines our state, where do we get all this morality and goodness and compassion from?

Now I can accept there may be ways of trying to explain ‘altruistic’ behavior using Darwinian evolution. But does the atheist not still find it odd that in this indifferent universe where the strongest survive, the animal that has reached the top of the tree, has characteristics that are the antithesis or furthest away from the underlying law that created them.

The most respected among us, unless you are a moron or an ape, are those who are not the strongest or cruelest, rather they are our saints - those who are
kindest, forgiving, loving, compassionate - all the things that surely we should be the worst at if Darwinian evolution was our creator.

Humans are the only animal that will knowingly sacrifice our own lives for others, not just family. Where does that come from in a universe where survival is everything?

Does it not strike the atheist as strange that the best parts of human nature are so completely at odds with the very biological laws and process that created us?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.