|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The origins and spread of evil and sin within our lives
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
The anger condemned by the text is the anger of Cain, resentful anger, clarified in the examples I provided. No one suggested only one use of the word, or posited that ALL anger is wrong, so you can put that strawman back in storage, to use on an actual hayseed.
And resentful anger is rare, which was exactly my point.
I said -
quote:
I don't think many people are evil. We make mistakes, we learn. By and large we do our best to care for others, both people known and unknown to us. We get on amazingly well, even in very large groups.
Some (sociopaths, psychopaths) have, one way or another, gone badly wrong and now have no empathy. But - although the damage they cause is terrible - they are very much in the minority.
Those who live their lives plotting evil are (mercifully) rare. The vast, vast majority of us are muddling through life as best we can on this difficult/confusing/animal/ planet which God in her wisdom chose to bless us with.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
And resentful anger is rare, which was exactly my point.
But you posted that you resented people with beautiful cars, not better food or nicer clothes. Resentment is resentment. Plotting need not manifest to make you culpable.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't think many people are evil. We make mistakes, we learn. By and large we do our best to care for others, both people known and unknown to us. We get on amazingly well, even in very large groups.
Some (sociopaths, psychopaths) have, one way or another, gone badly wrong and now have no empathy. But - although the damage they cause is terrible - they are very much in the minority.
Those who live their lives plotting evil are (mercifully) rare. The vast, vast majority of us are muddling through life as best we can on this difficult/confusing/animal/ planet which God in her wisdom chose to bless us with.
Resentment is sin. See the Sermon on the Mount.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
But you posted that you resented people with beautiful cars, not better food or nicer clothes. Resentment is resentment. Plotting need not manifest to make you culpable.
No I didn't - I said that, like most people, I had a fleeting 'what if' feeling.
There seems to be an awful lot of assumption in your posts. Assuming the worst in people. I suppose an 'everyone is evil unless "in Christ"' belief will feed into that attitude.
I believe most people are good, with the occasional blip or mistake - and I assume the best until I know otherwise.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Do people really tot up their sins of the day, including resentment, envy, negative thoughts, lustful thoughts, and so on? Gordon absolutely bleeding Miss Bennett.
It reminds me that at work (therapy), probably the commonest thing I used to say to people was, 'stop being so hard on yourself', as one of the commonest neurotic symptoms was precisely that.
It used to frighten me how hard people were on themselves, I don't mean religious people, so I suppose this scrupulosity has sunk deep into the collective psyche.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do people really tot up their sins of the day, including resentment, envy, negative thoughts, lustful thoughts, and so on? Gordon absolutely bleeding Miss Bennett.
It reminds me that at work (therapy), probably the commonest thing I used to say to people was, 'stop being so hard on yourself', as one of the commonest neurotic symptoms was precisely that.
It used to frighten me how hard people were on themselves, I don't mean religious people, so I suppose this scrupulosity has sunk deep into the collective psyche.
The idea is to capture our thoughts so that we don't put harmful ideas into action. Once we have, it is a good thing to reflect upon it, decide we won't do it again, and ask for God's forgiveness. That gives us a clean sheet, so that we're no longer burdened by them.
Resentment, envy etc are acid to us if we allow them to remain unchecked.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do people really tot up their sins of the day, including resentment, envy, negative thoughts, lustful thoughts, and so on? Gordon absolutely bleeding Miss Bennett.
It reminds me that at work (therapy), probably the commonest thing I used to say to people was, 'stop being so hard on yourself', as one of the commonest neurotic symptoms was precisely that.
It used to frighten me how hard people were on themselves, I don't mean religious people, so I suppose this scrupulosity has sunk deep into the collective psyche.
The idea is to capture our thoughts so that we don't put harmful ideas into action. Once we have, it is a good thing to reflect upon it, decide we won't do it again, and ask for God's forgiveness. That gives us a clean sheet, so that we're no longer burdened by them.
Resentment, envy etc are acid to us if we allow them to remain unchecked.
OK, fair enough. I do think it sounds incredibly narcissistic, my little negative thoughts are so important, apparently.
To me, the whole process sounds very burdensome. It reminds me of clients I had who every night, would go through the day at work, trying to remember all the mistakes they'd made. But why?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I was listening to a psychiatrist on the radio saying we all have some crazy irrational, unwanted thoughts - it's normal. She said the way to deal with them was to ignore them and move on, realising that they happen to everyone. Not to dwell on them as that would lead to anxiety.
I would put 'sinful thoughts' (a fleeting wish for an MX-5 Miata is a sin?) in the same category. Don't beat yourself up about them! More important - don't make others feel guilty about them - life is hard enough.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good summary, that, Boogie. Don't hang onto negative stuff; don't beat yourself up; don't beat others up.
Of course, it gets more complicated if we have recurring negative stuff, which repeats and repeats, and can get acted out.
But then I would say we are into depth psychology, and the words 'handle with care' are attached.
One of my supervisors used to talk a lot about the need to suffer, which is a bastard thing, but quite common. It's no good usually, saying, stop it, as there is so much secondary gratification.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To me, the whole process sounds very burdensome. It reminds me of clients I had who every night, would go through the day at work, trying to remember all the mistakes they'd made. But why?
There are a lot of people who are too hard on themselves and would benefit greatly if they could ease up on themselves. On the other hand, there are also a lot of people who really should be harder on themselves and at least think a little bit about what they ought to do differently. My guess is that compared to the former group, the latter group is not very well represented among your clients.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To me, the whole process sounds very burdensome. It reminds me of clients I had who every night, would go through the day at work, trying to remember all the mistakes they'd made. But why?
There are a lot of people who are too hard on themselves and would benefit greatly if they could ease up on themselves. On the other hand, there are also a lot of people who really should be harder on themselves and at least think a little bit about what they ought to do differently. My guess is that compared to the former group, the latter group is not very well represented among your clients.
I don't think that's true really. It's true I suppose, that unthinking people tend to remain unthinking, but as we know, life has a habit of giving most people a shock now and again, and then you find bewilderment and so on, and even a kind of break-down, if you are lucky!
I'm not sure how many people remain untouched in that way.
One of the excellent ideas of the late Melanie Klein was that humans must think about their feelings, and not have an inchoate mass of them. Well, I could go on, but I see that the crow already makes wing to the rooky wood, and that Madeira will not drink itself.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that's true really. It's true I suppose, that unthinking people tend to remain unthinking, but as we know, life has a habit of giving most people a shock now and again, and then you find bewilderment and so on, and even a kind of break-down, if you are lucky!
I'm not sure how many people remain untouched in that way.
How about people who see problems they create for themselves compared to people who think all the problems they see are someone else's fault? I'll be surprised if you think there is no significant bias in the selection criteria for the sample you are basing your observations on.
I appreciate the insights you offer here, but how much can you apply them to the whole population?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that's true really. It's true I suppose, that unthinking people tend to remain unthinking, but as we know, life has a habit of giving most people a shock now and again, and then you find bewilderment and so on, and even a kind of break-down, if you are lucky!
I'm not sure how many people remain untouched in that way.
How about people who see problems they create for themselves compared to people who think all the problems they see are someone else's fault? I'll be surprised if you think there is no significant bias in the selection criteria for the sample you are basing your observations on.
I appreciate the insights you offer here, but how much can you apply them to the whole population?
I don't think you can. But in terms of guilt and shame, and blame, you can certainly build up a kind of profile, or set of profiles. Definitely, there are those who blame, and those who are ashamed, although in fact, many people do both (obviously). But this stuff is empirical, not predictive. The next person you meet will have a unique set of characteristics.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The next person you meet will have a unique set of characteristics.
Absolutely. But it's more obvious how to apply that as a therapist than as a paster in the pulpit.
Not really. An old supervisor of mine used to say, well, give it two years, and if you still don't understand what they're saying, maybe time for them to move on! Well, it takes two years for some people to thaw out.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not really.
OK, then I am surprised. A therapist listens to an individual or small group and tries not to judge or assume. A preacher delivers a message to a large group covering the whole spectrum, trying to inspire those who blame and those who are ashamed. Can a preacher focus only on the message that we should not be too hard on ourselves? Or would it need to be balanced by something else?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not really.
OK, then I am surprised. A therapist listens to an individual or small group and tries not to judge or assume. A preacher delivers a message to a large group covering the whole spectrum, trying to inspire those who blame and those who are ashamed. Can a preacher focus only on the message that we should not be too hard on ourselves? Or would it need to be balanced by something else?
Yes, I see what you mean. It seems difficult to combine different messages - don't be hard on yourself, but pay attention also, (for the unthinking).
I think my 'not really' is a bit inaccurate. Sometimes I can meet someone and there is a lightbulb moment. But of course, there are so many levels in people. For example, the ones who blame, are often deeply ashamed. This takes time to unravel.
But most people coming to therapy are in crisis, they have hit a brick wall, they are in pieces. The complacent tend not to turn up. Well, I guess that happens in church as well.
But it gives the therapist a head start. We accept that you are in a clusterfuck doublebind of a mess. Begin.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
My image of old time religion (possibly, a false one), is that it would break into a lather, and positively berate the complacent, until they were roused from their slumbers.
I suppose a problem with that is that the overly guilty would also hear that, and feel even more guilty.
You could alternate: one week, blast everybody with their utter complacency and spiritual laziness; and the next week, tell them to chill, and spread de lurve.
But curiously, individuals are rather similar, since many people are not homogeneous. One week Mary is feeling deeply guilty and anti-pleasure, but the next week, she has slept with 3 men, and drunk 3 bottles of vodka. What should she do now?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But of course, there are so many levels in people. For example, the ones who blame, are often deeply ashamed.
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But curiously, individuals are rather similar, since many people are not homogeneous.
Yes, those are good, important points.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Have we yet had an answer to the question: Who was Adam?
For me, the question as to whether Adam was an historical figure falling from a state of heavenly perfection or not is crucial to the argument.
Incidentally, what I find intriguing about Adam is that he drops out of the biblical record from the first two or three chapters of Genesis until picked up again by Paul. He does not seem to have been important, therefore, to either the theology of the OT or the gospels.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Adam is a generic term. It means "people".
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Two good minimal observations that are germane to the OP. Are there any more?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Can't we create a special forum where people can go to say "You don't have scientific proof for the existence of God!" and then we set up a rota where we take turns of going into that forum and reply "We know!" ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Except that a lot of religious people, including some Christians, maintain that they do have such a proof – despite being unable to demonstrate it. And that’s OK, a bit sad perhaps, but OK until they start screwing up other people’s lives by insisting that their belief is a really, actually, undoubtedly, trust me on this I’m a diamond geezer truth which you can take to the bank and the poor blighters take them at their fancy-dressed, false reputation enhanced word. It happens - time and time again, can’t put food on the table? – God still expects you to tithe, don’t use those nasty science-based medicines - just pray......... Not that any of such people ever come to SoF of course, but the “moderates” have always provided the breeding ground for “extremism”, enabled the confused smokescreen into which the “extremists” retire to regroup and failed to deal with their own “nutters” because to do so leaves them exposed as the “new nutters”
Also – are you suggesting that it’s possible to have an unscientific proof for the existence of God?
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christ radiates God, Martin: the goodness and love, peace and light of God.
There is no place for evil or sin, for deception or denial, in the presence of Christ.
Clearly your version of Christianity is markedly different to that which I grew up in – I was taught that Christ is God and that God is omnipresent. The obvious dichotomy was what started the quest that led to logic sneaking into the bubble.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made. Why is that not an inaccurate model?
I took the model concept to mean that the conscious is modelling the unconscious - I think that is inaccurate. I do think that "The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made." is an accurate model (description) as to how the experimental evidence indicates that things work.
quote:
(I also know lots of things that are not provable: for example, I know that the birds I saw in a tree yesterday were woodpigeons, which is not provable, because there's no documentary evidence; and that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.)
But the first is capable of proof – you could have photographed the birds. You can’t photograph God. Whilst I’m neither a mathematician nor a physicist I believe the second is only true within certain limits.
quote:
If you can do so I recommend that you watch the television series “The Brain with David Eagleman”. The first two shows are available on the BBC iPlayer - BBC4.
Firstly, I've read a fair amount of New Scientist and also a fair amount of philosophical discussion of these experiments, stroke victims, change blindness, etc. Therefore, I have what I consider a justifiable belief that the probability of me learning enough that I don't know already and that significantly affects my understanding of these matters is low compared to the time I would have to spend on it.
If you can't be bothered to take the time to make your points yourself I can't be bothered to do your work for you. If I said this I would expect to be told that it was a cop-out – that I was not prepared to risk having my preconceived ideas shot down. Would you take second- hand religious instruction from a young , inexperienced, unqualified novice or go to the source – to the professor who is a professional sharer of his, and his colleagues, experiences and results. After all - you might find out that I’ve misunderstood the facts and be able to offer to help me get an accurate understanding mightn’t you?
quote:
In any case, my point is that if you really think that the conscious mind has no choice in what decisions it makes, and that all the work happens at the subconscious level, it makes no sense to talk about basing beliefs on evidence available to the conscious brain. If the subconscious brain decides what it believes based on whatever evidence it chooses,
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said or have I failed to make it clear enough? The unconscious does not choose what evidence to consider, it reacts to the totality of its data. Additional data is harvested by the conscious brain – sight, hearing, etc. and added to the information available – that’s why the need to be able to accept modification to one’s cherished ideas is important, cognitive dissonance is painful and opens the cogniter(?) to abuse by driven minds quote:
and then lets the conscious brain kid itself that it was making the decision on rational criteria, then you cannot claim for yourself any warrant to claim that your beliefs are actually more rationally grounded than anyone else's.
Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions quote:
This requires a bit more modesty towards other people's epistemological positions that you've so far shown.
As to modesty - I’m not too busy to risk watching programmes which might prove me wrong.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
HughWillRidmee: Except that a lot of religious people, including some Christians, maintain that they do have such a proof
I don't. But you are rehashing your same old non-arguments, on a thread that isn't about proof for God, about scientific evidence, or about neurological proof of free will.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
HWR. Puh-leeeeze! I agree with LeRoc, damn his eyes. I said something nice about you anadromously or elsewhere, but this is just not appropriate here. A strong minority of us, here at least, make NO such claims of proof. Utterly reject ALL such claims.
And of course we have non-transferable, interior, Jungian, proofs. And I'm a Freudian. It would be so much easier to be strong atheists, but we just can't get over The Hump to get there.
Rhetoric shorn of two legs, leaving logic alone, is a woefully inadequate stool on which to declaim to Christian atheists.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
HWR. Puh-leeeeze! I agree with LeRoc, damn his eyes. I said something nice about you anadromously or elsewhere, but this is just not appropriate here. A strong minority of us, here at least, make NO such claims of proof. Utterly reject ALL such claims.
And of course we have non-transferable, interior, Jungian, proofs. And I'm a Freudian. It would be so much easier to be strong atheists, but we just can't get over The Hump to get there.
Rhetoric shorn of two legs, leaving logic alone, is a woefully inadequate stool on which to declaim to Christian atheists.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
Oooops, my apologies, wrong button and not noticed in time!
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: Except that a lot of religious people, including some Christians, maintain that they do have such a proof
I don't. But you are rehashing your same old non-arguments, on a thread that isn't about proof for God, about scientific evidence, or about neurological proof of free will.
1 – I responded to a post which claimed that the self-giving love that leads to actions against our own interests, has its origin in God. We know that instinctively. This is a claim about how our brain operates, a claim without evidence or reason to support it which, if left unchallenged, could be used to justify beliefs and actions that otherwise might not be justifiable.
2 – Of course they’re non-arguments – it takes two to argue and all I’ve read so far is unargued dismissal and a refusal to consider a professional’s reasoned opinion.
3 – I followed others’ diversion, if posters don’t want their almost certainly inaccurate opinions challenged they shouldn’t publish them should they?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
HWR. Puh-leeeeze! I agree with LeRoc, damn his eyes. I said something nice about you anadromously or elsewhere,
It was noticed and appreciated quote:
but this is just not appropriate here. A strong minority of us, here at least, make NO such claims of proof. Utterly reject ALL such claims.
I understand that and some atheists try to separate Christians into good/reasonable/we can work with Christians on the one hand and dogmatic/lying-for-Jesus/all-or-nothing Christians (think parts of the Tea Party etc.) on the other. I don’t know where the line can be drawn. quote:
And of course we have non-transferable, interior, Jungian, proofs. And I'm a Freudian. It would be so much easier to be strong atheists, but we just can't get over The Hump to get there.
strong atheism is usually considered to be the belief that there is no god or gods. Since the concept of god(s) is so hugely amorphous I’m reluctant to go there myself – though I’m pretty sure that specific god(s) I’ve been exposed to are rationally implausible. quote:
Rhetoric shorn of two legs, leaving logic alone, is a woefully inadequate stool on which to declaim to Christian atheists.
This didn’t start as a response to an obvious Christian atheist though did it?
By the way
.
.
.
.
.
- Part 3 was very interesting.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
HughWillRidmee: I responded to a post which claimed that the self-giving love that leads to actions against our own interests, has its origin in God. We know that instinctively.
This thread is about the origins of evil and sin. To you, evil and sin don't exist because everything we do is the product of our neurology. That's noted. By your own definition, your discussion stops here. I don't see a need to rehearse your scientific evidence non-logic here.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
A problem with feelings of guilt, and shame, is that people frequently have too little or too much. Seldom a reasonable, moderate amount. The goal should be for transfer of excess to the evil consciousless.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made. Why is that not an inaccurate model?
I took the model concept to mean that the conscious is modelling the unconscious - I think that is inaccurate. I do think that "The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made." is an accurate model (description) as to how the experimental evidence indicates that things work.
'My conscious mind is making the decisions' is a inaccurate model of the process in the unconscious mind that amounts to the decisions already being made.
quote:
quote:
(I also know lots of things that are not provable: for example, I know that the birds I saw in a tree yesterday were woodpigeons, which is not provable, because there's no documentary evidence; and that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.)
But the first is capable of proof – you could have photographed the birds. You can’t photograph God. Whilst I’m neither a mathematician nor a physicist I believe the second is only true within certain limits.
The two clauses in the first sentence are in different tenses. It doesn't matter whether or not I could have photographed the birds; it's only capable of proof if in fact I did photograph the birds.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points by definition. (When we say Einsteinian space is curved in 4-dimensions, what we mean is that it would be curved were it embedded within a notional Euclidean 5-dimensional space.)
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you can do so I recommend that you watch the television series “The Brain with David Eagleman”. The first two shows are available on the BBC iPlayer - BBC4.
Firstly, I've read a fair amount of New Scientist and also a fair amount of philosophical discussion of these experiments, stroke victims, change blindness, etc. Therefore, I have what I consider a justifiable belief that the probability of me learning enough that I don't know already and that significantly affects my understanding of these matters is low compared to the time I would have to spend on it.
If you can't be bothered to take the time to make your points yourself I can't be bothered to do your work for you.
If I said this I would expect to be told that it was a cop-out – that I was not prepared to risk having my precoEnceived ideas shot down. Would you take second- hand religious instruction from a young , inexperienced, unqualified novice or go to the source – to the professor who is a professional sharer of his, and his colleagues, experiences and results. After all - you might find out that I’ve misunderstood the facts and be able to offer to help me get an accurate understanding mightn’t you?
The analogy here is that I've read Professor A's book aimed at third-year undergraduates and masters students, and you're telling me to sit through Professor B's first year undergraduate lectures.
Suppose you came on here and talked about the history of the church, and someone told you to watch MacCulloch's documentary about the history of Christianity. Suppose you replied that you'd read the Oxford History of Christianity, and the Cambridge Companion to Christian History, and some other general information. It would not be reasonable for us to respond that this was a cop-out. You have a reasonable expectation that you already know everything of importance that might appear in a tv documentary series.
If we think there's something you might learn from MacCulloch that you don't already know, we would then have to be specific about what that was.
If you can tell me one significant item of information from each program that I would not have picked up from reading New Scientist, then I'll watch the programs.
I mean: you have not disputed the evidence (I have read about this in New Scientist) I have put forward here. You have not disputed that my evidence leads to my conclusion (New Scientist usually covers matters in at least as much depth as television documentaries do).
And please indulge us lesser mortals by getting your quoting straight.
quote:
quote:
In any case, my point is that if you really think that the conscious mind has no choice in what decisions it makes, and that all the work happens at the subconscious level, it makes no sense to talk about basing beliefs on evidence available to the conscious brain. If the subconscious brain decides what it believes based on whatever evidence it chooses,
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said or have I failed to make it clear enough? The unconscious does not choose what evidence to consider, it reacts to the totality of its data.
Firstly, this is quibbling over words.
Secondly, if the unconscious did consider the totality of the data, then our conclusions would always reflect the totality of the data. Which they do not.
quote:
Additional data is harvested by the conscious brain – sight, hearing, etc. and added to the information available
It is not true that data is harvested by the conscious brain. It goes through the unconscious brain before it goes to the conscious brain.
Consider change blindness. Or even just simple visual illusions.
(Isn't there a good documentary you could watch from which you could learn about this? Or would you have to go to a more in-depth treatment like New Scientist?)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
