Strong Atheists are Blinded by Their Senses. (Buddhist, mythology, agnostics)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No I don't get the idea. Drugs and trauma can alter the brain's functioning . . . but we are talking about the brain's normal functioning. Since our entire reality is comprised of field phenomena . . . it is presumptuous to conclude that the brain's response to fields is not part of its sensing abilities. The use of substances or the existence of brain traumas or dysfunctions can NOT be used to interpret the NORMAL workings of the brain. Meditation and the altered states it achieves are NORMAL workings of the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyker
Hello MysticPhD.
I think the problem for the skeptic is that we have no evidence that the brain is responding to anything external, thus there is no reason to assume that it is.
Why the double standard? Everything we receive from the main sensory systems are automatically seen as responding to external stimuli. I repeat our entire REALITY is nothing but FIELD energy/mass/momentum. The brain's field sensitivity is more subtle and to detect it normally requires suppression of the main sensory system producing an altered brain state. This should not automatically remove the external attribution.
Even the weak artificial EM fields are too strong and not of the right "type" (since we can measure and detect them). Consciousness fields are neither measurable nor detectable (neither are dark energy/matter fields) This subtlety is the reason the brain normally requires suppression of the "loud" main sensory system to respond to the consciousness field.
Quote:
To say that the brain's response to weak EM fields constitutes evidence that it is designed to do so does not strike me as a convincing argument.
By itself it would not be . . . but when combined with the consistent interpretations across people it should. Why on earth would our brain consistently interpret a "oneness" with all reality and a "presence" from artificial external field stimulation?
Quote:
Why would our brains respond to THC if they were not designed to do so? Perhaps we should all seek spiritual awareness by smoking weed? Then again, my brain also responds to opium, so maybe we should be trying that as well. Alcohol, mushrooms, salvia...you get the idea.
The issue is not merely how the brain is designed to function but WHAT the brain expects to INTERPRET. Again these substances all alter the brain's normal functioning directly by altering the neurotransmitters and pathways involved. When all the neurotransmitters and pathways are not interfered with . . . the brain responds to the more subtle unified field (consciousness field). The stronger EM fields mimic the subtle consciousness field sufficiently to overpower the "loud" sensory system when we are NOT in an altered state of suppression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Experiments have shown that the human brain can be affected by artificially produced EM fields - eg an EM field directed at Broca's area can temporarily take out a person's ability to speak. Directed at another area, it can affect moral judgement. At another area, it can induce panic/fear. At another area it can affect balance. Too strong and it can induce seizures/death.
I have explained the differences above. EM fields are too strong and not of the right "Type" but they mimic the more subtle consciousness field (unified field) that the brain is designed to detect and interpret. Overpowering the brain's field sensing CAN produce anomalous effects . . just as ANY overloading of our sensory system would do.
Quote:
How someone can then take a giant leap and say that this is a reason to think that there is some kind of "Universal consciousness field" -or even another giant leap further - that this supposed 'consciousness field" is "God/Jesus", is well into the realm of just wishful thinking.
These leaps are made on the basis of my personal experiences, study of the sciences involved and a study of the "spiritual fossil record." They involved no wishful thinking because I was atheist when I was suddenly motivated by the experience to try to explain what I experienced to my intellect. But I understand anyone else's reluctance to make the same leaps.
Strong atheists? i was under the impression an atheist is an atheist, doesnt think about religion,doesnt talk about religion,doesnt care about religion and certainly doesnt waste time pondering the quoted bafflegab..
A perfect example, of a "strong atheists", bafflegab . Surrounded by a strong wall of defence ,against
what he fears , might just be, very true .
You made quite a few claims in your last e-mail, so I'm just going to touch upon a few of them for us to explore together in more detail and we can come back to the others in their time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Why the double standard? Everything we receive from the main sensory systems are automatically seen as responding to external stimuli.
The problem here is not one of a double standard, but one in which your "consciousness field" does not match the other sensory input because it defies objective detection. Any other sensory input (light, sound, chemical particles) can be independently verified by using an instrument made to respond to the input in question (a photosensitive detector, microphone, mass spectrometer or what have you). Even our sense of touch can be verified by examining the qualities of a material that is felt (temperature, hardness, etc.) Your proposed "consciousness field" is incapable of detection. Therefore I can effectively prove input into other senses while I cannot find any evidence for this proported "extra sense."
Quote:
Consciousness fields are neither measurable nor detectable
And this is exactly the problem.
Quote:
(neither are dark energy/matter fields)
But this is not entirely true. Although we cannot detect dark matter directly, we can see the effect it has on the remainder of the physical universe (e.g. the gravity it generates). This is true of dark energy as well (e.g. the acceleration of the universe's expansion). Your proposed "consciousness field" is again distinguished by the fact that there is no objective evidence, either direct (as we have for light and sound) or indirect (as we have for dark matter and energy).
So your "consciousness field" stands out as the only phenomenon discussed for which there can be no objective evidence presented. Only the subjective activity of the brain can supposedly interact with it by some equally mysterious mechanism. This is all well and good for your personal religion/philosophy and you are certainly entitled to believe as you wish. That said, the lack of any objective substantiation also precludes it from being "scientific" by any reasonable definition of the term and (for me personally) it is wholly unconvincing. This is true not because it is unlike other religious claims, but rather because it is very much like them...propositions that have no empirical evidence to support them.
Why the double standard? Everything we receive from the main sensory systems are automatically seen as responding to external stimuli. I repeat our entire REALITY is nothing but FIELD energy/mass/momentum. The brain's field sensitivity is more subtle and to detect it normally requires suppression of the main sensory system producing an altered brain state. This should not automatically remove the external attribution.
Even the weak artificial EM fields are too strong and not of the right "type" (since we can measure and detect them). Consciousness fields are neither measurable nor detectable (neither are dark energy/matter fields) This subtlety is the reason the brain normally requires suppression of the "loud" main sensory system to respond to the consciousness field.By itself it would not be . . . but when combined with the consistent interpretations across people it should. Why on earth would our brain consistently interpret a "oneness" with all reality and a "presence" from artificial external field stimulation? The issue is not merely how the brain is designed to function but WHAT the brain expects to INTERPRET. Again these substances all alter the brain's normal functioning directly by altering the neurotransmitters and pathways involved. When all the neurotransmitters and pathways are not interfered with . . . the brain responds to the more subtle unified field (consciousness field). The stronger EM fields mimic the subtle consciousness field sufficiently to overpower the "loud" sensory system when we are NOT in an altered state of suppression.
I have explained the differences above. EM fields are too strong and not of the right "Type" but they mimic the more subtle consciousness field (unified field) that the brain is designed to detect and interpret. Overpowering the brain's field sensing CAN produce anomalous effects . . just as ANY overloading of our sensory system would do.These leaps are made on the basis of my personal experiences, study of the sciences involved and a study of the "spiritual fossil record." They involved no wishful thinking because I was atheist when I was suddenly motivated by the experience to try to explain what I experienced to my intellect. But I understand anyone else's reluctance to make the same leaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyker
Hello MysticPhD.
You made quite a few claims in your last e-mail, so I'm just going to touch upon a few of them for us to explore together in more detail and we can come back to the others in their time.
The problem here is not one of a double standard, but one in which your "consciousness field" does not match the other sensory input because it defies objective detection. Any other sensory input (light, sound, chemical particles) can be independently verified by using an instrument made to respond to the input in question (a photosensitive detector, microphone, mass spectrometer or what have you). Even our sense of touch can be verified by examining the qualities of a material that is felt (temperature, hardness, etc.) Your proposed "consciousness field" is incapable of detection. Therefore I can effectively prove input into other senses while I cannot find any evidence for this proported "extra sense."
And this is exactly the problem.
But this is not entirely true. Although we cannot detect dark matter directly, we can see the effect it has on the remainder of the physical universe (e.g. the gravity it generates). This is true of dark energy as well (e.g. the acceleration of the universe's expansion). Your proposed "consciousness field" is again distinguished by the fact that there is no objective evidence, either direct (as we have for light and sound) or indirect (as we have for dark matter and energy).
That is not true. All we have as proof of the existence of consciousness is indirect . . . from our interactions with it. How is that any different than the indirect interactions we see for dark energy and dark matter?
Quote:
So your "consciousness field" stands out as the only phenomenon discussed for which there can be no objective evidence presented. Only the subjective activity of the brain can supposedly interact with it by some equally mysterious mechanism. This is all well and good for your personal religion/philosophy and you are certainly entitled to believe as you wish. That said, the lack of any objective substantiation also precludes it from being "scientific" by any reasonable definition of the term and (for me personally) it is wholly unconvincing. This is true not because it is unlike other religious claims, but rather because it is very much like them...propositions that have no empirical evidence to support them.
Thanks.
When you can explain how a composite form of energy/mass that is produced by our brain can reside in physical matter . . . you will go a long way to refuting my field claims. As it stand the only locus for such an energy composite (analogous to"fire") is the unified field that establishes our reality.
When you can explain how a composite form of energy/mass that is produced by our brain can reside in physical matter. . . you will go a long way to refuting my field claims.
Why is the onus on others to explain something you're just making up out of thin air?
"There's unicorns everywhere, that's how rainbows are made. When you can explain how those come about, you will go a long way to refuting my rainbow-making unicorn claims".
That is not true. All we have as proof of the existence of consciousness is indirect . . . from our interactions with it. How is that any different than the indirect interactions we see for dark energy and dark matter? When you can explain how a composite form of energy/mass that is produced by our brain can reside in physical matter . . . you will go a long way to refuting my field claims. As it stand the only locus for such an energy composite (analogous to"fire") is the unified field that establishes our reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Why is the onus on others to explain something you're just making up out of thin air?
"There's unicorns everywhere, that's how rainbows are made. When you can explain how those come about, you will go a long way to refuting my rainbow-making unicorn claims".
Yeah, that approach makes exactly zero sense.
Again with the straw man comparisons. We have a consciousness and it is real, interactive with reality and identifiable. Absolutely everything in our reality that is real, interactive and identifiable HAS to be comprised of some form of energy/mass. Our consciousness is produced by our brain in a form analogous to how fire is produced from combustibles (but using different processes). This leaves no place within the brain for the resultant composite to reside because it is not matter. It would be like expecting the fire to stay within the combustibles. Since everything is really only field anyway (not matter) . . . it is not implausible (or unicornish) to assert that it resides in a resonant neural field within the unified field that establishes our entire reality. I know you have difficulty with making legitimate comparatives . . . but this one has no resemblance to your unicorns. There are actual plausible mechanisms for it.
Hi Myst! Still at it I see....I have a question for you. What do you think about aliens? Big Foot? The Lock, or Ghosts?
I'm just wondering if you give those people the same considerations as you do to yourself about spiritual connections? Or....is it just a God you give up your senses to experience?
Do the other claims deserve the same removal of blindfolds? Or just God? Should we atheists shed our sense and go on a hunt for E.T. or Big Foot as well? Does this apply across the board? When exactly does it stop?
I'm still trying to figure out the comparison to Fundamentalist Christians, we don't have the "book", the "Stones" of commandments, or the "Devil" as a menace to our cause. Could you list some comparisons? That would help me understand the accusations. Being compared to a fundamentalist Christian is insulting to me. I'd like to understand if you have reasons for this comparison or if it was just meant to twist my knickers. TY
Again with the straw man comparisons. We have a consciousness and it is real, interactive with reality and identifiable. Absolutely everything in our reality that is real, interactive and identifiable HAS to be comprised of some form of energy/mass. Our consciousness is produced by our brain in a form analogous to how fire is produced from combustibles (but using different processes). This leaves no place within the brain for the resultant composite to reside because it is not matter. It would be like expecting the fire to stay within the combustibles. Since everything is really only field anyway (not matter) . . . it is not implausible (or unicornish) to assert that it resides in a resonant neural field within the unified field that establishes our entire reality. I know you have difficulty with making legitimate comparatives . . . but this one has no resemblance to your unicorns. There are actual plausible mechanisms for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppySead
Hi Myst! Still at it I see....I have a question for you. What do you think about aliens? Big Foot? The Lock, or Ghosts?
Hi poppy! They all refer to something we do NOT know exists . . . whereas God refers to what we DO know exists . . . our reality itself. I know that doesn't satisfy atheists who prefer our ignorance about reality to any suggestions about what it actually IS.
Quote:
I'm just wondering if you give those people the same considerations as you do to yourself about spiritual connections? Or....is it just a God you give up your senses to experience?
Do the other claims deserve the same removal of blindfolds? Or just God? Should we atheists shed our sense and go on a hunt for E.T. or Big Foot as well? Does this apply across the board? When exactly does it stop?
As I pointed out they are not comparable and I have had no personal experiences related to them. But I do have such experiences as regards God. I know that does not carry any weight with atheists . . . but it does with me.
Quote:
I'm still trying to figure out the comparison to Fundamentalist Christians, we don't have the "book", the "Stones" of commandments, or the "Devil" as a menace to our cause. Could you list some comparisons? That would help me understand the accusations. Being compared to a fundamentalist Christian is insulting to me. I'd like to understand if you have reasons for this comparison or if it was just meant to twist my knickers. TY
Fundies are fixated on their book they believe is inerrant and revealed by God. Atheists are fixated on the material world (5% of reality) revealed only by our senses. The similarity is the fixation. Fundy beliefs are rigid and uncompromising because of it. Atheist unbelief is rigid and uncompromising because of it. Have a nice day, poppy!
Edit to add: I really don't want to twist your knickers!
Last edited by MysticPhD; 07-20-2014 at 07:46 PM..
Fundies are fixated on their book they believe is inerrant and revealed by God. Atheists are fixated on the material world (5% of reality)
stop playing word games athiests don't believe in god because there is no evidence. stop insulting athiests by comparing them to fundies who unlike atheists don't read anything that disagree with them and provide testable and observable evidence that the material is 5% of reality
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
