A difficult puzzle..

Because you are suggesting that all is reduced to "neurological event" and in the case of 'blueness', you also say that the event is 'identical' between one person and another.

Based on that assertion of yours, then when the subject is no longer 'blueness' but rather "God", then the same rule you have asserted would also be applicable. You also assert that "we are still observing...", therefore, when the subject has been changed to 'God', then it is possible (based on your assertions) to view God, which would mean that God exists.

 

duplicate post.

 

Why can't we trust (for 100% certainty) anything "empirical"?

There's still no evidence that it is describable mathematically. There is only evidence that the machine which generates the ghost is describable mathematically. The ghost exists, otherwise I wouldn't feel/experience it.

I observe this "additional layer" every day. I feel it. In fact, it's more of a "direct" observation than this computer screen or any "physical" experiment.

If the machine is identical to the ghost, and they understood the ghost (their feelings), they should have understood the machine. Instead, they didn't know the first thing about atoms or molecules or chemistry or neurology.



You keep basically making a false analogy to the following sort of situation:

One person sees a spatial object from one perspective, and views parts of it, but not the entire thing (representing experiencing feelings), and another views the same spatial object from another perspective, and views different parts of it, but not the entire thing (representing a being that couldn't feel anything, observing the neurological mechanisms behind feelings etc.), and a third person has the ability to view all perspectives of it and view the entire spatial object (representing a scientist who could both feel feelings etc. and observe said neurological mechanisms).


The analogy is flawed because the relationship between the ghost and the machine is "mechanism-generated", whereas the relationship between two perspectives of a spatial object is "spatial view 1 contrasting spatial view 2". Analogies have to have two (or more) objects/relationships which are bounded by a relationship, and to be valid, this relationship must be similar. As I just mentioned, here, it's not similar.

A better analogy to the ghost and machine would be another "mechanism-generated" situation. For example, a machine generating heat by operating. That would is still weak as an analogy because the heat was, by the energy-matter relationship, part of the components of the machine itself, and were released as a result of certain thermodynamic processes. The energy was stored somewhere(s) in the machine and released as a result of it operating; i.e. changed from one form (stored energy) to another (heat energy).

I could continue, but what you find is that there is no valid "physical" or spatial or mathematical analogy to the machine generating the as-of-yet-not-intrinsically-mathematical phenomenon of "feelings" and "consciousness".

Lastly, in all these analogies, one part of it (in the first example, on spatial perspective, and the other, the machine) is quite obviously not identical to the other part of it (in the first example, another spatial perspective, and the other, the heat). They are both DIFFERENT PARTS of ONE object (in the first) and process (in the second). If the ghost didn't exist or were identical to the machine, that wouldn't be the relationship.

 

The spirit works with the brain to express itself in the physical world. So if the brain or part of the brain is damage the spirit cannot express what it would like, since the part of the brain that it would do so is not functioning.

 

Of course there are differing spirits that can do that interaction. Because of the varying degrees of power that are assigned to those spirits, would determine whether or not the person remains afflicted. After all, there is a spirit of affliction (which has lesser spirits operating under its authority to include all of the illnesses known to man and then some more). But the Holy Spirit is not limited in His Power and can push aside any and all of those lesser spirits.

 

DeathStar, putting words in other people's mouths and then making arguments using them is a very weak form of debate.

Also, expressing opinions and calling them facts is feeble indeed.

The functions of the brain are physical. As mentioned above, they involve chemical processes and electrical charges. I'm not suggesting that modern science understands all of these things completely. But I can assure you they are physical and not metaphysical. Since there is no evidence of the existence of souls, the best bet is to refer to them as opinions or beliefs rather than facts. If you try to put opinions against scientific facts you are going to lose the debate.

 

Define "physical" precisely.

So what?

When have I said they were "metaphysical"? Btw my OP is flawed; what I should've said is "mathematically indescribable".

And define "metaphysical".

What does the recent discussion have to do with souls? Define "soul"?

 

I am talking about the human spirit that is in everyone. I am not talking about the Holy Spirit......that Spirit is only given to those that are baptized in the name and the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit, with a minister of God hands laid on them.

 

And your point regarding how the indwelling of the Holy Spirit arrives within one?

As for the spirit of man.... I concur... that also works with the brain... after all, the brain is where re-cognition of anything takes place.

 

That there is a difference between the Holy Spirit and man's spirit. All human beings have the latter, but only a few have the Holy Spirit.

 

Really?!!!!!! Wow! How long did you study to come to that conclusion?

 

Is it necessary to be sarcastic?

 

I guess the attitude of this forum is starting to be a part of what is necessary to survive this forum. According to your status info on the page, you have been a member since 2008. You have not yet learned about the traditional ridicule, harassment, rude behavior and sarcasm? Do more posting and you will get accustomed to it.

 

And you think that justifying yourself will make it right and that God is pleased? It does tell me that you would rather be like those around you, rather than be a positive light as Jesus said we should.

 

Did I imply that God would be happy? The old guilt trip thing don't work with me.

Jesus said a lot of things,,, but unfortunately,,, most churches today have abandoned the teachings of Jesus and have gone a whoring with the State. In fact, those churches married the State with a 501c3 contract of marriage to the rules of the State. Now how do you think you pastor would try to justify the FACT that he and his board of deacons have abandoned their first estate?

 

I never said you did. I said you are justifying yourself......it’s just another way of saying you are right. Not the old guilt trip. But I guess you don't believe that if you do or say something that is wrong no one should call you up on it? But then, you did imply that you are part of the crowed and like those in the crowed, they justify whatever wrongs they do. But I have no intention of making you feel guilty……that is up to you.

And not one record of Him in the Bible that would justify your attitude.

 

Why do you think that there is a need for me to justify myself. I am a Christian, and I am already justified.

Responding to a post is now the equivalent of 'doing something wrong'?

No! You interpreted what I said to have that meaning that you infer.

Then I am not guilty of any offense.

And what attitude are you attempting to assign to me now?

 

I did not say that you have any need to justify yourself. I am saying that is what you did.

No, but your attitude was......the way you responded is.

This is what you said: I guess the attitude of this forum is starting to be a part of what is necessary to survive this forum. According to your status info on the page, you have been a member since 2008. You have not yet learned about the traditional ridicule, harassment, rude behavior and sarcasm? Do more posting and you will get accustomed to it.

In response to what I said:Is it necessary to be sarcastic?


So you are in effect justifying being sarcastic because as you said, it’s part of what is necessary to survive this forum. You believe you have to be this way to survive, but I don't. I have the spirit of God in me, which is infinitely superior to sarcasm.....you should know that.

This is a typical response of a person whom is not aware when they are being offensive or disrespectful.

That Jesus was not a sarcastic person. People who engage in sarcasm are prone to depression. The U.S has the most depressed people percentage wise in the world...and there are a lot of sarcastic people in the U.S…..and I did not have to go to some study to know that.....I noticed it when I migrated here. Jesus is not that kind of person.....He was not prone to depression or to being sarcastic.

 

And I am saying that you have a distorted perception of my life.

Again, your faulty perception.

Really? Why could that comment of mine have simply been more sarcasm of my own and not necessarily the result of my being a member of the group to which I am directing the sarcasm?

What is offensive and disrespectful behavior? Is it not a matter of the individual perception? What is offensive and disrespectful to you may or may not be offensive and disrespectful to someone else. You are not the center of the universe and the universe does not revolve around you. You are just as insignificant as any one else on this forum.

Well, if you don't like the US and the depressed and sarcastic people here, then go back where you came from. Simple solution to that problem. As for Jesus and sarcasm... perception of the individual pertaining to the teachings of Jesus. I am certain that some who were living at that time felt that he was extremely sarcastic (as viewed from their perception).

 

You don't call this being sarcastic? Incorporeal-Really?!!!!!! Wow! How long did you study to come to that conclusion?

You don't call it being disrespectful? Do you believe only certain people should be respected? If it was your mother would you say the same thing? Is that how you talk to your mother? Would you respond the same way if you were addressing for example the Mayer or some dignitary of the U.S government? I doubt if you would.

Remember the golden rule.....do to, or in this case say to others what you would like others to say to you. So if you want others to respect you, respect others. But maybe you are already too far gone, your conscience might be seared like with a hot iron, as the scripture says preventing you from understanding what I am talking about.

So you are admitting that you are a sarcastic person?

It might be that you have been this way so long and no one has ever told you that you are. Maybe those around you are just like yourself. Generally, most people don't like to be corrected so they surround themselves with those who will approve of what they do.

I never said that I don't like the U.S. It tells me that you were brought up to believe that if someone says something that is unflattering, it means the person that say what he or she said does not like the one they are addressing....could it be that you are projecting? I don't know.

 

No! I call it "asking you a straight question" which you responded to with a sarcastic remark.

No.

I believe in giving respect where and when respect is due. Equal opportunity to all people. I would probably say worse to her, considering that she is the one who provided my basic moral patterns. Should she vary from those patterns, then she would deserve worse. In your case, I was being polite and merely asked a simple question. If your perspective caused the question to take on a differing presentation that what was written, then that is a problem with you.

If the situation requires it, YES!

I am on record here in the state of Florida, audio recording (still on file) addressing the legislature on March 9, 1996, wherein I asked them "if you are going to allow any agency of the state to re-write your laws, then we don't need you on the payroll." A complete silence fell across the room. Everyone was shocked... but oh well. Your doubt in what I am capable of doing is obviously misguided. If you have any doubt regarding the validity of what I have stated, then request the moderators to contact Mr Steve Kahn (former Senate General Counsel) and ask him if he knows me and knows about my dealings with the legislature.

That variation of the golden rule, is the same tactic that you attempted to blame me with in one of your earlier postings. Make up your mind, as that is exactly what I did. I treated others as I have been treated on this forum. If you don't like that sort of treatment, then it would probably be time for you to move on to a forum where everyone thinks just like you... that way there would be no room for you to engage in conversation that is in your opinion rude and sarcastic.

That is a two-way street. Like I said earlier, respect is given where respect is due.

Now you are displaying an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Of course I am sarcastic... so are you. So what is your point?

Many people have told me that I am sarcastic... my response: let him who is without sin cast the first stone.... or "don't throw stones in a glass house".

Then that would seemingly be a point of projection. Why are you surrounding yourself with people who are openly sarcastic... such as here on PF?

But you openly admitted that you don't like sarcasm, you (upon migrating to the US) found that a greater percentage of the people are sarcastic and depressed... Sooooo. The likely conclusions are :

1 You don't like the US or;

2 You don't like the citizenry of the US because of their sarcastic and depressed nature.

Your choice.

 

See ya..........

 

What??? No rebuttal??? That would mean that you are acquiescing to my last comments.