The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

I'll just add to DA's response. Do you have any evidence that gives you reason to think otherwise? Is there another method to find out if it will or won't?Scientifically, it appears we revolve around the Sun, too. Would you argue that there might be a margin of error so severe that we might be completely wrong about that?It seems like you are saying there's a margin of error that might show that we are completely wrong about our thoughts ceasing after we get shot ...interesting, what would the evidence be for that error being so big?I'll agree that we don't know everything about cognition, there's much scientist are still working on. But for it to be wrong that the brain/mind/thoughts cease once you're dead, that means there's a mountain of evidence that is wrong! I just don't believe that would be the case.But if it is, then something should be pointing us in the direction that's exposing the mistakes in the theory that our mind ceases, so please, show me what that evidence might be ... what would lead anyone to doubt?- Oni

Oni I am still working on your response, i just wanted to add something here.Electrolux, in this context we are not addressing what happens after the grave, only what happens in the brain function process, presently. but please jump in at anytime, the more the marrierEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Sorry, HG, I didnt mean to say Electrolux, I was working on an antique vacum I have in the basement and it was on my mind, it sounds similarEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

In Message 113, I stated You said Did I misrepresent you again or are these your words? Are you now manuvering your words to saysomething different than you did before? Consciousl;y aware of your thinking process, is just another way saying you hear your thoughts in somemanner. I know its hard for you to accept that you actually hear your thought in a manner other thanaudibly, but it does happenNow your getting closer to explaining your original comment, which I have now reproduced for you,thanks. Everybody needs alittle time to think about what they hae said at times. By all means pleaseexplain the cognition part in the context of the illusion. ONI, point TO the illusion that makes it possibleto have this illusion. now dont just randomize it to its entirity, show me where the illusion (that which Icall thought) takes place. Hey, if possible show me this illusion, by translating it into some sort ofimage, that should be no problem since its all a physical process correct?Illusion and explaining it as an illusion and consciously aware, are to vauge a discription to allow us todefine it exclusivley within the physical process If I could do this there would be no mystery and my questions would be answered. I dont need to explainthe OBVIOUS and if I am incorrect show me that I am not actually hearing them. Is your inplication herethat you do not hear them? Your task is simple, show me what I am hearing IN THE PROCESS, show methe ILLUSION of audibility in its TRUE FORM, since its all physical. no problem correct?Do you remember that I am the one maintaing that there is no actual substance to that which I hear andyet I hear it in some fashion? Im telling you there is no need to try and clasify something which cannotbe verified from a physical standpoint. But you seem to think this is no problem, hop to it,EMA writes:Oni writesI didnt say it stops being real I said its has no substance to evalusted, test or measure, but its realnontheless, because I can produce and hear the thought in some fashion. If you think its all, WITHsubstance, show me that thing that you hear, even if by illusion. Show me the physical substance of theprocess or the illusion. No problem correct? Because it should NOT produce SOMETHING that I can ACTUALLY hear in some fashion, that ISexclusively a chemical process. If it is, demonstrate in the process where this action takes placeEMA writes:I understand perfectly what you are striving for, but the questions make no sense to you because you arestarting with a preconcieved idea of what a thought may be in the first place.let me give you an example. When a delusional person sees something that is not there, the image is realbecause it is produced by a physical process that has gone astray in some fashion. the process is realand the image is real as a result of the process, but the image has no actual substance even though itsprocess and its results are physical and real. its both real and not physically real at the same time Because you should not be able to hear a chemical process and a delusional person should not be able tosee an actual image simply from a nurological funtion if this is the case, where in the process am i hearing the thought, where is the actual image the delusionalperson is seeing. Now notice I did not say describe the process again, I said where is the image, where isthe thought and where and how am I hearing it. cognative awareness is only a discription of theprocess,it is not a demonstration of the idea itself or the image produced. those things while real and aPART of the process must be seperate in character because they are not IDENTIFIABLE IN THE PROCESSEAM writesi just did, I can hear it, see it in a dream and nut jobs, can see it while they are awake. the idea is notidentifiable, the image is not ascertainable in the chemical process. if it is only a part , show it to me. I agree with all of that, its not my position or contentionWhether a person can think is red is irrelevant that they can produce thoughts at all. Ok No, but whats the point? Ive already answered this, but you did not answer my response, you just repeated yourself I can hear and see them in dreams and a few crazy people can see them while they are awake., Mr Brooks. Now that boy is a few screwdrivers short of a toolboxEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Msg LinkEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Sorry admin I did it again, Ill try and fix it next time, i thought i had, sorryEAM

No you didn't. The context in which "I have the illusion I hear them" was said, was refering to audibly. If you are not saying we hear them audibly, then I have no reason to refer to thoughts as an illusion. I agree. But you seriously don't understand that my explanation for how thoughts come about ( in the physical sense) explains this. I have made several attempts but you fail to understand.Why should I explain further? Nonsensical ... you are failing to understand. That which you call 'thought" is wrong. You are calling it a thought in the fact of scientific evidence against it. You are so far into this misrepresentation that you continue to ask nonsensical questions.I NEVER called a thought an "illusion," the only thing I called an illusion was the hearing it audibly part. Why can't you understand that? It's not that hard.I don't regard thoughts as an illusion, I regard "hearing them audibly" as an illusion. That's it. Please don't ask me again about the illusion of thought because I won't respond to it. NO. If you could do this you would stop asking nonsensical questions, because, you'd actually KNOW the answer. It's the same fuck'n thing! Preconcieved? It's not preconcieved, it's science!The rest of your post is just the same stuff repeated (in a nonsensical fashion) so I'm done here.- Oni

I think you misunderstand. We are in agreement. I am taking EMA's vacuous point and patronizing it.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

ONI writes:I never said you did. Ill wrap this part of the discussion up, later this evening, then we can make it merge into the discussion of Freewill in connection with God, that is the God of the Bible. That is if you are willing to try you luck against the concept of freewill and omnidcience.Im up for this one as well.EAM

HG writesPerhaps you would like to take a shot at what I am asking to be demonstrated. My guess is that you will be able to do no better than ONI, but by all means knock yourself outEAM

Well you tell me. In what way are gods actions not evil?

Oni writes:I understand your frustration because i have put you in a position of explaining and demonstrating something that is not demonstratable, measurable, testable or translatable in terms of a scientific method.You have made a valiant effort, in the fashion, of detailing the actual process of thought formation, but it falls way short of explaining that which a person hears in some fashion, in the mind, that which is produced in dreams and that which a delusional person manufactures in a nearly real sense from thier perspective., ie an actual image.These items and these specific situations demonstrate beyond any doubt that something more is taking place as a result of the physical process. abstract qualites are being formed in a way that distinquishes them from the simple process. Even if we allow it to be a part of the process EXCLUSIVELY, something is being produced of an abstract nature.Your simple repetition and referls to the process, do not disregard this fact. You have done nothing to refute the OBVIOUS. you have failed terribly in demonstrating these simple obvious CHARACTERISTICS in the physical process are distinct in there own right.You have failed terribly in demonstrating in a counterfactual way that images, sounds and ideas, are NOT something More than a chemical and biological process Its hard to understand because you are sidestepping what you originally contended. Your original statement was that, you could not hear them AUDIBLY, but that you "have the illusion of hearing them". These are two different statements, even though they are refering to the basic premise. With this I never disagreed.I simply asked you to identify and explain what it was that you heard in your head, if even as an illusion and how this is possible. Other than repeatedly restating the process model, you have failed to identify the abstract concept, that is obvious to all living personsEAM writes:Oni writes:Hardly, and when you are honest with yourself you will see this distinction. You are able to discern this simple and obvious reality without the ad ons like Materialism or Dualism.Now if you want to discuss this in the context of freewill, omniscience, the morality of heaven and hell I am more than willing to oblige, spcifically the idea of freewill and Gods omniscienceEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

The problem you are failing to see is two-part.One, it doesn't matter that you hear your thoughts, my only point is that thoughts are real, they are empirically detected funtions in the brain, and that they exist in reality.You want me to explain how you are conscious of them, which is basically exploring why we are conscious at all. Which, while a great topic, is completely off-topic here.Two, by claiming that the thought is seperate from the "hearing the thought" process, you are advocating (even if you don't realize it) for a seperation of the mind and body. Which again is dualism.The reason you are advocating for dualism, or the mind body seperation, is because you feel that some how you are seperate from the mind producing the thoughts. Which you are not.But either way, as long as they are real in the funtional sense, my point has been made. We can argue about consciousness on another thread. Finish the statement. My original statement was that I could not hear them audibly, but that I had the illusion that I could hear them audibly.That's what I'm trying to explain. Not that I have the illusion that I can hear them, but that I have the illusion that I can hear them AUDIBLY. Explain how something can have no substance but still be real? If decisions are made because of reaction to stimuli, then there is no freewill at the atomic and molecular level. However, the way we expeience reality makes it seem like there is.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

No problem.
Sorry I havent got to this yet, very busy. I am excited about starting the next discussion and wraping up the last one and making them tie together. Ill get to it as quickly as i can.In the meantime asswer this question. its a Jay Leno special. if the Aztects, Mayans, whatever could see what is going to happen in 2012, why couldnt they see the Spaniards coming? Now that funny stuff.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Sure, I'll play along. Ask me your question.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

No, what I want you to explain and what you have avoided like a plauge from the beginning is simply answer the question, is, how are you hearing your thoughts if it is not audibly. First you say you dont here them audibly, to which I never disagreed, noy you say it is off topic here. now that is about as nonsensical as one can get in any approach to answering a simple question.here it is again for the 98th time. How are you hearing your thoughts, without your ears?Another question in this context and we will see if you do any better with it. How do you see your dreams. That is, the images you see in you dreams, are you seeing them with your eyes, using outside stimulus? lets see what you do with this one?Notice that you have now again failed to answer the question about hearing your thoughts by stating, ""it doesnt matter that you hear your thought, my only point was........" it matters greatly in this contextSecondly, if thoughts and images are REAL in the sense of physical realities, then simply SHOW me a thought as an idea and as it is heard, or an image as it is seen in the dream. Produce the substance of that thought as it is conjured, or the actual image of the dream as it is percieved in the brain.I say, and I have now clearly demonstrated that while the THOUGHT (idea-contemplation) is part of the PROCESS, BEFORE, DURING, AFTER, IN PART OR IN WHOLE, it doesnt matter, that which the PROCESS
produces in the form of an idea or image, is in and of itself without substance, in the sense it can NOT be measured, evaluated, tested, or TRANSLATED from a physical standpoint into physical realities. the reason is because it has no reality while it is real nonetheless. Not in any sense of the word. I am contending and have demonstrated without doubt that it is all a physical process, some of which has no substance to test or measure. if you think it does simply show
me the IDEA or the IMAGE in physical terms. No problem, correct? This is a total misrepresentation of my position and you KNOW IT. More sidestepping and evasion. Hear (here) it is again. if not audibly, what are you hearing in your mind. Now notice, I did not ask you what you are NOT HEARING, I asked you what you are hearing and how it is taking place, where is its physical reality, how do you identify the IDEA, itself in the PROCESS, in whole or in part This is where the mystery lies., I dont know how that works, NOW WATCH THIS, only that it does, it is obvious and it is verfiable, because I can hear, AND see in images in the form of a dream that reality, which does not appear to have substance.Actually, since you believe it is all a physical process, I was kinda hoping you could explain it to the rest of us, that is, SHOW ME THE SUBSTNACE OF THESE, IDEAS AND IMAGES, themselfs, not simply the functions of the process. Or show me in the chemical and biological process, what I am hearing and seeing as a result of the PROCESS, in whole or in part. Show me in a physical way, NOW WATCH, EXCALLY what my brain is seeing and hearing, reproduce that which is all a physical process anyway. No problem correct?you have done nothing except repeat the process, to explain why I am wrong in my conclusions. God is as independent from thoughts and ideas as thought and ideas and images in dreams are independent of physical realites. if I am wrong demonstrate why. Wrong. Decisions are made in conjuction with stimuli, but every individual has the will to override the stimuli to make a decision in any direction. Why would someone in thier right mind, ignore such a simple, NOW WATCH, and OBVIOUS point. Maybe they have other agendas.EAM