Catholics make up 78% of free state population.👍👍👍

[Hardy]

Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.

The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.

I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?

What are you talking about?

Apologies for the abrupt response earlier.

I really don't have time to engage in the sort of lengthy discourse you're conducting with J70 and I don't see the point of it anyway.

I'll try to answer your question. Shermer does not suggest that the colour red is an illusion and so does not approach taking such a suggestion to its logical conclusion that everything (in what you call the material universe) is an illusion. I haven't read all of your ruminations here, but I get the impression that that's the conclusion you're heading towards.

Shermer is presenting the case that the results of neurological research are leading us further and further towards the confirmation of monism (mind and brain are synonymous - mind is the outworking of physiological activity in the brain) as opposed to dualism (mind and brain are separate).

He would say that red is just the name we give to the neuronal activity that takes place when the brain reacts to light of a certain frequency impinging on the retina.

The brain evolved to run the body. It's easy to understand how our low-level physical functions – breathing, beating of the heart, scratching an itch, standing upright without falling over – are managed by the chemical action of neurons in response to input stimuli, these actions in turn controlling muscles in a fairly classical feedback loop arrangement.

At a higher functional level, the same sorts of processes take place. An external stimulus (light of the "red" frequency striking the retina) occurs. Those neurons fire whose job it is to interpret the frequency of light hitting the retina. Depending on the requirements of the particular situation, other neurons in the brain will fire in response. They may just passively notice, "look, there's something red"; they may stimulate a response in the part of the brain that manages feelings and emotions – "that's a beautiful shade of red"; or they may send a signal to your muscles to hit the brake pedal in response to a red traffic light.

(None of this is quoting directly from the book, as Shermer doesn't so far discuss the particular question of colour perception. I'm attempting to answer your question about how his conclusions, as I understand them, would apply to how the brain reacts to the colour red.)

So, to answer your questions as per Shermer's conclusions:

So where does that leave the colour red residing then?

The colour red "resides" in the actions of neurons in response to certain stimuli.

I imagine your author probably says its an illusion?

He doesn't. Quite the opposite. He would describe the colour red in detailed physical terms.  It is far from an illusion.

If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion

That does not follow from anything he says.

can you see the problem?

Nope. If you think everything material is based on an illusion try checking what happens if you decide to ignore the instructions of the neurons telling you to hit the brake at the red light. On a cosmic level it may be insignificant, but it's still not an illusion that the atoms and molecules of you, your Ferrari and that big truck are scrambled into a pattern different to the one that existed a moment before.

[omaghjoe]

Joe, you hadn't outlined that before but thank you for doing so.

None of that makes any sense to me though. What I mean is, I have most of those things that you've listed but I see no place for any deity in those experiences.

To me it sounds like you're working backwards from your belief. I don't mean to insult you or tell you what you believe but if appears that you were brought up believing in the Christian god, had some doubts and then looked for reasons to regain your faith. Obviously there are so many wonderful things in the world and in your life specifically that can attribute to god if it helps you on the path you desire. You recognise the bad stuff in the world and how it sort of contradicts how you attribute the good stuff to god, but you settle for the god side as it brings you peace.

Like I said, that probably sounds very arrogant and condescending. It's not supposed to be and of course I might be wrong. It's just how I read it.

Yes God forms the basis of my view of the world so I would say that I work up from faith but no Im not working backwards.

IF you say you dont have it fair enough but you beleive "you" as a distinct entity exist dont you? you believe that you have freewill dont you?

Maybe you dont but and there are plenty of people who dont, there are some people who even believe that their consciousness experience is an illusion. Ironically much of this is based on the notion that our consciousness experience gives us a solely accurate depiction of the world, ourselves and of consciousness itself. This is an assumption based on nothing and the later is complete circular reasoning.

Anyway my point is (that I am continuously trying to make) that everyone needs a foundation to base their outlook on and that ultimately has to be something subjective. Otherwise you'll end up at skepticism where nothing exists. It also seems to me that those basing their outlook solely on the empirical believe that it is somehow objective. Truth is, its not, as empiricism is based on our subjective experience, at least those of faith are frank about where their outlook comes from.


As far as how or why I lost and regained by faith, obviously I refute your assessment. I lost faith because I didnt like the idea of someone telling me what to do, and to a lesser extent thought it was fashionable, God of the Gaps etc and then looked for ways to back that that up (mostly more God of Gaps and assumption that we live in base reality, but there are plenty more). I regained it because of the experience of life i had, the relationships I had and probably what finally tipped me over was a certain occasion when I had that feeling of sublime. I have to say tho I never completely lost that fire of faith, just choose the doubts ahead of it. Maybe a few more years of suppressing it tho and I might have extinguished it, I don't know. Obviously its brings me more at peace is that not further vindication?

But don't you base your every day life on empirical evidence? Because we're dealing with the supernatural you claim we shouldn't apply the same approach. Why? Like i said in my football analogy earlier. Maybe the game I saw wasn't a draw. Maybe I imagined the whole thing. But I'm going to assume I saw it because it's what I tend to do.

The way you talk about your faith doesn't sound like faith to me at all. It sounds like you're pretty much on the fence. Talk of potentially going to the other side, that its bringing of peace to you being a vindication. It sounds like you might be thinking about it in the empirical way that you're saying we shouldn't.

And we haven't even started on why Christianity over any of the others.

I'm guessing even more that you're just happy being at peace with what you've decided to follow, rather than actually believing in what you say you believe in. Then again, I said from the outset that I don't usually use the word believe as I find it hard to define.

Esm no offence but it seems your going around in circles by just reverting to your stance where you say..

"Its sounds to me that your x even tho you say your y" which doesnt really mean anything to anyone except you.

There is no explanation behind that statement nothing specific that you dont understand, therefore I cant respond. Your basically saying I think you should think the same way as me...well...right back at ye Esm!....

I asked you the following questions to try give you an understand where faith comes from so if you are earnestly trying to do that try and answer them.

Do you believe in freewill? If so whats the reasoning behind it?
Do you believe in yourself as a distinct entity? If so....why?

I ask you this because most if not all people have an instinct belief in both of these same as I do in faith. However some people reason them away. 

Of course I use my senses to asses my environment we were over that in a prior thread, and from above it should be obvious that are used to experience and discover the world around us, Just because I dont believe they can tell us everything doesn't mean i dont think they are inherently useful or that they cant tell us anything at all. I'll put that down as an attempt to corral me into the either or fallacy.
And if I did live my life on the prevailing theory based on empirical evidence then I wouldn't give a shit about anything because Im just a bunch of interchanging atoms living out an illusion...

"Why Christianity" was even covered in this thread and in one of our prior discussion as well as previously so I am tempted to say that your just making stuff up at this point.

I would suggest going over what I have written you in this thread and in other ones, try earnestly to understand it and ask questions that I can answer. It sounds to me that "Its sounds to me" is just the point where you either don't or don't want to understand anymore.

[omaghjoe]

Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.

The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.

I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?

What are you talking about?

Apologies for the abrupt response earlier.

I really don't have time to engage in the sort of lengthy discourse you're conducting with J70 and I don't see the point of it anyway.

I'll try to answer your question. Shermer does not suggest that the colour red is an illusion and so does not approach taking such a suggestion to its logical conclusion that everything (in what you call the material universe) is an illusion. I haven't read all of your ruminations here, but I get the impression that that's the conclusion you're heading towards.

Shermer is presenting the case that the results of neurological research are leading us further and further towards the confirmation of monism (mind and brain are synonymous - mind is the outworking of physiological activity in the brain) as opposed to dualism (mind and brain are separate).

He would say that red is just the name we give to the neuronal activity that takes place when the brain reacts to light of a certain frequency impinging on the retina.

The brain evolved to run the body. It's easy to understand how our low-level physical functions – breathing, beating of the heart, scratching an itch, standing upright without falling over – are managed by the chemical action of neurons in response to input stimuli, these actions in turn controlling muscles in a fairly classical feedback loop arrangement.

At a higher functional level, the same sorts of processes take place. An external stimulus (light of the "red" frequency striking the retina) occurs. Those neurons fire whose job it is to interpret the frequency of light hitting the retina. Depending on the requirements of the particular situation, other neurons in the brain will fire in response. They may just passively notice, "look, there's something red"; they may stimulate a response in the part of the brain that manages feelings and emotions – "that's a beautiful shade of red"; or they may send a signal to your muscles to hit the brake pedal in response to a red traffic light.

(None of this is quoting directly from the book, as Shermer doesn't so far discuss the particular question of colour perception. I'm attempting to answer your question about how his conclusions, as I understand them, would apply to how the brain reacts to the colour red.)

So, to answer your questions as per Shermer's conclusions:

So where does that leave the colour red residing then?

The colour red "resides" in the actions of neurons in response to certain stimuli.

I imagine your author probably says its an illusion?

He doesn't. Quite the opposite. He would describe the colour red in detailed physical terms.  It is far from an illusion.

If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion

That does not follow from anything he says.

can you see the problem?

Nope. If you think everything material is based on an illusion try checking what happens if you decide to ignore the instructions of the neurons telling you to hit the brake at the red light. On a cosmic level it may be insignificant, but it's still not an illusion that the atoms and molecules of you, your Ferrari and that big truck are scrambled into a pattern different to the one that existed a moment before.

I think the highlighted term says it all Hardy, it means you've a certain paradigm that you want to be proved right on. I was cutting to the chase and telling you that book isnt gonna do it as there are basic logical questions that need to be answered.

Firstly I think your really talking about the binding problem of linking physcology and neurology (which is no where near to be resolved either) rather than the Hard Problem of our conscious experience.

Monism is a broader term and could apply to solipism, idealism as well as materialism. What you are professing seems to be more specific materialism. However neural patterns dont really tell us anything and in fact gave more credence to the brain in the VAT scenario than proper empirical materialism. It would also suggest there is no freewill, that we are just on a rollercoster and we dont have any proper genuine input.

Anyway if the colour red resides in a nueral pattern I should be able to look at your nueral pattern and see the colour red that you see, but guess what... I can't, I just see electrical pulses. In a way Neural patterns are no different to me watching Brian Dooher get his face imprinted onto the Croke Park turf by Martin O'Connell and saying.... I can feel his pain (well actually... I sort of did and still do!)

Check out Mary's problem it gives a better explanation...

If your author doesnt say explicitly its an illusion fair enough. however neurologists and quantum physicists have put thier heads together and said well the energy from the photons (which are the quantum source of light) is all used up by the firing of the neural pattern. There's no energy left unless they missed some in the dark matter , therefore they conclude that our consciousness experience is an illusion. But of course their assuming a materialist universe in the first place

So I dont know how far down that road your author goes with that but thats the prevailing thought at the moment from neuroscientists. Generally these guys are trying to sell books, and generally that is to people with a paradigm that their work compliments without even touching on the more difficult questions that are hanging over their subject.

Good work on ignoring me BTW maybe you dont have freewill at all Hardy?

[Esmarelda]

Joe, it seems emotions are getting out of hand so I'll keep it short and to the point out of courtesy.

If I say that something "seems to me" it's because it's my assessment something as I see it. How can you say it means nothing to anyone but me when you're just one person? Maybe it means plenty to plenty of other people.

I never said you should think like me. I've no idea where you got that from and at this stage I'm not even going to ask such is your apparent frustration.

To your questions, I'm unsure on free will. I've read a bit on it and I see the conflict. Does my indecisiveness on the matter mean something for or against my general view on faith?

Do I believe in myself as a distinct entity? I believe I exist because I can see myself in the mirror and I experience emotions. Other people also recognise me. I guess I do, yes.

I'll probably leave you to it at this stage. I'm obviously frustrating you and I've no interest on this deteriorating any further.

[omaghjoe]

Joe, it seems emotions are getting out of hand so I'll keep it short and to the point out of courtesy.

If I say that something "seems to me" it's because it's my assessment something as I see it. How can you say it means nothing to anyone but me when you're just one person? Maybe it means plenty to plenty of other people.

I never said you should think like me. I've no idea where you got that from and at this stage I'm not even going to ask such is your apparent frustration.

To your questions, I'm unsure on free will. I've read a bit on it and I see the conflict. Does my indecisiveness on the matter mean something for or against my general view on faith?

Do I believe in myself as a distinct entity? I believe I exist because I can see myself in the mirror and I experience emotions. Other people also recognise me. I guess I do, yes.

I'll probably leave you to it at this stage. I'm obviously frustrating you and I've no interest on this deteriorating any further.

Feck me Esm get a spine look at Hardy Im snarky as f**k with him and he keeps coming back, (tho when your civil to him he gets bored).

If someone says about an explanation that I give that it seems to them to your explanation is not right with no rational to back it up of course they're gonna hold you accountable for that.

Anyway freewill and sense of self are analogies to where faith comes from, thats really what your asking about isnt it?

However the prevailing theory of both is that neither exist. You seem to understand the freewill problem and are undecided yet I'll bet you still live your life like you have it?
On the sense of self as a single entity the conventional wisdom these days is that we are actually within an interconnected, interchanging "cloud" of atoms, and somehow within that cloud atoms have arranged themselves to create the self awareness that you and I experience. So when you see your arm or face or even your brain while you may think its the same and belongs to you is really just a "force-field" that your see at the interface of different arrangement patterns of atoms.

Im not talking about your view on faith Im talking about my own and drawing comparisons to your belief in freewill and sense of self to mine in God. You seemingly started this out with the goal of understanding faith as you say you have none? Well my point is  if you can understand your intuitive belief in those things that can be easily reasoned away then you should understand someone else's intuitive belief in God which most atheists have reasoned away.

[Carmen Stateside]

Anyone else catch Joe Duffy show today about the ex cop that claims to have seen Fr John Sullivan? found it fascinating for he seemed of sound mind although at the time he was under a lot of pressure