The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

Did you or did you not, ask me if I can see my dreams?I know what it was connected to, your other misunderstanding about thoughts. But again, continuing to answer these questions is leading us off-topic.That is why I disregarded it originally, because it adds nothing to the debate.- Oni

Fair enough, but we are trying to explain it a bit better for you and you refuse to accept even the possiblity that you may be wrong in "the way you see it." Here's the thing: if you say that the brain is painting a mental image for you of the world you encounter (translating properties and images), yet that image has no substance, then fine. That is one way to look at it.This is known as a Cartesian theater, which is rooted in your favorite, dualism.The problem with this is where are these images being projected? Also, who is looking at these images, how are they looking at it, and are you suggesting that (whoever/the individual) looks at these images then decides how to react?With a camera, we would say that the image was projected onto a picture. Can you explain it equally for the brain?If I have misunderstood your position then please explain. No argument there. But it is not producing any sort of image of these thoughts.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I wasn't being facetious, seriously. Physical in the sense of your brain processing what the eye sees, yes. Are you referring to a mental image or taking a picture from a camera? All right, so what was your question along these lines?

---

"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

DA writes: This is alot of info in the last five or six posts by you fellas, Ill work on it progressively today and show you my position from the information you have provided.EAM

Surely those with free-will can only do evil if the potential for evil already exists? So how can the creation for the potential of evil be "good"? I don't think free-will is any sort of answer to the question I asked.And I still don't know how I am supposed to know what God thinks is good or evil at any gven time. As per Message 124.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The potential for evil exists the moment free will is created and options placed before it. The potential for evil is an option associated with the existance of a free will. Without a free will there would be no potential for evilThe creation of free will necessitates and begets the potential for evil (with evil being defined as "doing what God says not to") Potential for evil is what makes free will free - so long as potential for good forms the alternative option.The (reframed) question was "do you think being given the potential to go in either of two directions (free will) is a good thing. Better than any other option you can think of (which involves a degree of robotics in our response)- God doesn't tell us how your supposed to know (although the delivery device is called 'conscience' but we'd probably argue as to what that's telling us).He just says we do. What does it matter how we know, so long as we do?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

DA writes:The human brain recieives information in an abstract form. In other words, when I see something, my eye interprets that information for the brain, WITHOUT recieving any actual physical properties into the
brain itself, What is recieved is an abstract form of the actual property.the human brain stores that information in an abstract form and then reproduces it again at some point. It should be fairly simply to realize that the human brain cannot actually recieve any physical property into it that is not already a part of it., ie blood and oxogen, etc. Anything else would cause it to malfunction. therefore whatever is recieved is recieved in an abstract form, synthezied by the the eyes and ears and other receptors the brain then reproduces these abstract ideas and images in the same way it recieved them.No ACTUAL PHYSICAL PROPERTY is ever recieved into the brain itself,, it is abstract information reinterpreted by the auditory receptorsThe brain unlike the computer can create other abstract concepts i suppose with a combination of existing ideas already present in an abstract form. It acts I suppose like the holodeck on the enterprise, it extrapolates furhter situationS and concepts from its existing abstract ideas and formulates situations inthe form of dreams, none of which is any ACTUAL PROPERTY, THEY ARE ARE ABSTRACT FROM FART TO STNISH This is a simplistic way of approaching what is actually taking place and does not really addresss what I am addressing The key here in your statement is TRANSMITTED" to our brain. the actual image is recieved in an abstract form, using physical proerties in the process., ie, light from the original source, but which is reinterpreted by the eye or ear for a different reception by the brain itself. the brain stores the information in an abstract form without recieving anything of the actual physical properties ot the actual image itself. that is the brain cannot literally recieve any outside physical properties without it causing damage to itself. This has nothing to do with what I am saying. I agree with you here in the above statement. What I have read from ONI thouhg he may not. Yes ofcourse. But the abstract image it translated from a real propery, NO. it manipulates the real property in the process ofcourse, but the IMAGE itself, that it manipulates, is stored in an abstract form, then reproduced from real property processes to recreate the abstract image in a visual form to the minds eye. You can measure any chemical process that is measurable. the reason you cant measure, see or reproduce the image recreated by the mind from a physical property is because it is recieved and stored in an abstract form, as yet unknown to us HOW. If it is physical in the standard sense the it should be reproduceable as the mind reproduces it. It is not. Ofcourse they do, its all a process including the abstract reproduction and UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE thoughs, images, ideas and contemplations are an abstract reality and concept, manipulated by the the process. the process (in the brain) retrieves something from the physical properties, that is translated in the brain in an abstract form, then later reproduced in the same abstract form.Ofcourse the thoughts die with the process, they are an abstract result, before, during, after, in part or in whole, of the process, and yet, a part of it, yet distinquishable in character due to its abstract nature.No image can be reproduced from the brain or outside the brain, because the image itself is an abstract part of a physical process, characterized by chemical process, exclusively. But heres the KICKER, the image or thought presents its self as real in some fashion
EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

There being project in the process to the brain, it appears and from the brain, using the same method it used to store the information in an abstract form in the first place.But here is the kicker. the brain has to use some method in the first place to recieve actual data, information, this appears to be in some abstract fashion as a result of a very chemical process. if it is however, not abstrat in some form it should be reproducable outside the brain itself, correct? If Mr Hawkins can manipulate the electrical activity to manipulate the computer, we should be able to do the same with the images in the process, correct?I think we cannot because they are somehow an abstract part of a very complicated chemical and biological process Do you contend that the images in a dream are also, "the illusion of an actual image" as well. Is it your opinion you cannot actually see an image in your mind or in a dream.I do have to be very careful with you are are a slippery one in discussion. It appears to recieve the information in a way that is abstract in character. I know no way to reproduce the image from the chemical process, do you?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Not to respond for DA, since I'm sure he is more than capable.But just a few points. This is totally incorrect. The brain (and spinal cord) receive information via neurons. source

quote:

---

A number of specialized types of neurons exist: sensory neurons respond to touch, sound, light and numerous other stimuli affecting cells of the sensory organs that then send signals to the spinal cord and brain. Motor neurons receive signals from the brain and spinal cord and cause muscle contractions and affect glands. Interneurons connect neurons to other neurons within the brain and spinal cord. Neurons respond to stimuli, and communicate the presence of stimuli to the central nervous system, which processes that information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action.

---

No. Your eyes do nothing other than sense light, they don't interpret anything: source

quote:

---

Eyes are organs that detect light, and send electrical impulses along the optic nerve to the visual and other areas of the brain.

---

No it doesn't. Please show proof for this bare assertion. Your brains stores no information that it then retrieves. If you think it does, show the proof; support that statement by showing us where it stores that information.Your arguments don't seem to be grounded on any kind of facts. You just seem to be giving your opinion of how it seems to you that these things function.DA can deal with the rest of your post that is littered with nonsense.- Oni

Untrue. Evil can only be commited by those with free-will if the potential for evil has already been created by God. Why not simply operate free-will in an environemnt where only goodness and indifference exists? There is plenty of scope for choice and free-will right there without actual evil ever coming into it. I mean how many of us really choose between good and evil rather than good and shades of indifference on a daily basis? So why even create the opportunity for evil? How can that possibly be deemed a "good" or even necessary thing?I am afraid that free-will is not an adequate answer as to why god created the potential for evil. But we don't know what God thinks is good or evil at any given time. That is the point. And given that (apparently) our salvation rests upon knowing this it seems like something of an oversight on His part.Why can't he make his absolute morality known to us? Then we can exercise genuine free-will. As things stand we have people like you taking a well intentioned best guess approach and people like me concluding that even if there is an absolute morality in existence I will never know what it is so I might as well assume that it doesn't exist and make up my own mind. With a bit of clear communication from him upstairs all this opportunity for poorly informed but well intentioned choices could be avoided. Poor management. If you are claiming that people can just feel what God determines to be right or wrong in any given situation then you are on seriously dodgy ground. Different people's consciences will result in radically different and often wholly contradictory outcomes. Leaving us more lost than ever in our quest to know what God deems to be right or wrong, good or eveil. So lost that we might as well give up on ever working it out and simply sort out how best to live together ourselves in fact. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I didnt say it didnt, I said it recieves no actual property of the original source, that is, it recieves the properties information in an abstract form from its original makeup. Why do I need to show proof of the obvious, that which you see and hear, even if it is apart of the process, in part or in whole What kind of information and processed in what fashion. Do you deny that which you hear and see in a dream are not a part of the information being transmitted by the neurons My arguments and recognizable information available to anyone are based in fact and reality. Your frustration is demonstrated by your inability to point out or reproduce the abstract concept which you both see and hear. In short you are losing the debate and any real sense of what is being said in this context.EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Really? So eyes and ears interpret information? From where I am sitting you are just talking ill informed nonsense. And what the hell has any of this got to do with belief in heaven or hell anyway?

I can't comprehend this combination of words, I don't know what any of that means. If you think this, then you have not read any links that I provided or have payed no attention to what we are responding to you.I'll try once again:

quote:

---

A neuron also known as a neurone or nerve cell) is an excitable cell in the nervous system that processes and transmits information by electrochemical signalling. Neurons are the core components of the brain, the vertebrate spinal cord, the invertebrate ventral nerve cord, and the peripheral nerves. A number of specialized types of neurons exist: sensory neurons respond to touch, sound, light and numerous other stimuli affecting cells of the sensory organs that then send signals to the spinal cord and brain. Motor neurons receive signals from the brain and spinal cord and cause muscle contractions and affect glands. Interneurons connect neurons to other neurons within the brain and spinal cord. Neurons respond to stimuli, and communicate the presence of stimuli to the central nervous system, which processes that information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action.

---

It is NOT an abstract thing, it is the function of sensory neurons. They transmit the info, they send the info from the stimuli to the brain, the brain then tells the body what to do - that's it - that's the complete process from start to finish that is called cognition (or, the process of thought). - I'll take that as a compliment?Look, I'm not trying to be "slippery," but don't approach this subject with any kind of authority and try to explain it to people who have actually studied some of this.I personally recognize that I have tons to learn on this subject ... you should too.Anyway... Here's the problem: there is NO image. How can you "see" what's in your mind? This is nonsense. The reason you feel you have to choose your words carefully is because you are using any word you like to describe stuff that is far more complex than you think it is.Take a look at the link I left you for dreams. Find anything in that link that suggests that you are "seeing" an "image" in your mind - there won't be.If you contend that there is an image, then just show me where the image happens.- Oni

It is complete and total nonsense, and you're right, it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. He continues to derail this into nonsense that honestly, I can't even comprehend some of the sentences.Like these:"it recieves the properties information in an abstract form from its original makeup.""There being project in the process to the brain, it appears and from the brain, using the same method it used to store the information in an abstract form in the first place."What does any of that even mean ... any clue?- Oni

It has everything to do with the topic, a bit side tracked but still on topic.What exact and original property of a tree does the mind actually recieve in and when it is viewed by the mind through the eye?
That is when it takes a snap shot of the the tree through the eye, communicated to the brain, what actual property of the original is now in the brain to allow it to reroduce the image of the tree itself.If its actual physical properties in the form of chemical excahnge, then simply reproduce the picture of the tree from the process, that is stored in some physical fashion. No problem correct? At this point it should be demonstrated out that you are unobjective individual and a complete and total liar and have no clear view of being sensible in any fashion.Your not being objective your being evasive.From your articleDo you see the word IMAGE anywhere in this sentece or paragraphIts a visible image irregardless of what an article indicates. this one seems to agree with me, atleast in verbageStop with the evasive crapola and start debatingEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.