Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Question of the Heart
Faithful Servant
Junior Member (Idle past 6147 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 05-28-2007


Message 1 of 36 (402606)
05-28-2007 9:34 PM


As I go about the internet following the ongoing debate between evolutionist and creationists, there is one concept I never seem to come across. There seems to be so much evidence in favor of evolutionism and not so much in the way of rock-hard fact when it comes to creationism, mainly because religion is about faith and not fact. But, there is one area that believers (or Christians, to be more accurate) have up their sleeve, and it's an area that neither evolutionists nor scientists have been able to even touch, while being the one area the Bible, Jesus Christ and God focus on the most. The heart. The mind. Consciousness. Whatever you wanna call it, that little part of humanity that gives us the ability to analyze, think and create. Our minds have a capacity for understanding that is far and away leagues above and beyond any other so-called "species" that, comparing us to animals begins to sound preposterous. And no one can explain it. For all of science's "physical" evidence, they can say absolutely nothing of the one thing that makes us who we are, because it has no "physical" properties to speak of. And it's the one thing EVERYBODY belives in. Why can't scientists account for this "unseen" aspect of life that we all know is there? Might it be because it is the ESSENCE of something else? Something greater than our "physical" bodies can detect? No one, it seems, can say. But, there was one who lived, who laid out exactly what this "unseen property" of humanity was, how it came about, and what happens to it in the end. His name was Jesus Christ. His revelation about this aspect of humanity was so great that, no one has been able to touch it since. Sure, many scholars and philosophers waxed poetic about what they "belived", but none of them were as clear and consice as he was. He spoke with authority about the condition of sin, right and wrong, and the hearts of men, and every single person living can attest to the truths about the inherent evil in the world because of sin, and that little "something" inside us that has a desire to do right. So, for what might be the first time (at least for me), let's us sit down and talk about this aspect of humanity that, at the very least, all of us belive exists in one form or another.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminCoragyps, posted 05-28-2007 9:58 PM Faithful Servant has replied
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2007 10:14 AM Faithful Servant has not replied
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 05-29-2007 10:59 AM Faithful Servant has not replied
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 05-29-2007 11:37 AM Faithful Servant has not replied
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2007 11:45 AM Faithful Servant has not replied
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 05-29-2007 12:22 PM Faithful Servant has not replied
 Message 13 by Equinox, posted 05-29-2007 1:19 PM Faithful Servant has not replied
 Message 14 by Doddy, posted 05-29-2007 7:49 PM Faithful Servant has not replied
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 05-29-2007 9:45 PM Faithful Servant has not replied

  
AdminCoragyps
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 36 (402610)
05-28-2007 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faithful Servant
05-28-2007 9:34 PM


Hello, Faithful Servant, and welcome aboard.
I may leave consideration of your topic's promotion to one of the more philosophical admins - I stay more to science most of the time. But let me raise a point. You wrote
The heart. The mind. Consciousness. Whatever you wanna call it,
Those things aren't the same. "The heart," even metaphorically, isn't "the mind." And neither is the same as "consciousness." I think I can see what you are driving at, but it would be much preferred if you make it clearer - it's your proposed discussion, after all.
You can use the edit button to change your text, or add a new post below. But please put in some paragraph breaks - my old eyes can't keep up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 9:34 PM Faithful Servant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 10:31 PM AdminCoragyps has not replied

  
Faithful Servant
Junior Member (Idle past 6147 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 05-28-2007


Message 3 of 36 (402615)
05-28-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminCoragyps
05-28-2007 9:58 PM


Absolutely.
The heart, as the bible refers to it, is the nature of an individual (a.k.a Spirit).
The mind is the part of us that thinks, which is led by the heart.
Consciousness is a combination of the two, the concept of existing.
See, the mind (a.k.a Flesh) looks to please the body, and the heart is more concerned with reconciling with God. Therefore there is a constant struggle between the two in children of God, those who are preordained to be saved.
The Flesh and The Spirit. The mind and the heart. Consciousness. The "observer" in us.
This is the way I understand it to be, as the Holy Scriptures explain it. Is that clearer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminCoragyps, posted 05-28-2007 9:58 PM AdminCoragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminSchraf, posted 05-28-2007 10:41 PM Faithful Servant has replied

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 36 (402618)
05-28-2007 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faithful Servant
05-28-2007 10:31 PM


Hello, Faithful Servant, and welcome to EvC.
This is an interesting topic, but I will say that you are making several very debatable claims when you say:
quote:
The heart, as the bible refers to it, is the nature of an individual (a.k.a Spirit).
The mind is the part of us that thinks, which is led by the heart.
Consciousness is a combination of the two, the concept of existing.
See, the mind (a.k.a Flesh) looks to please the body, and the heart is more concerned with reconciling with God. Therefore there is a constant struggle between the two in children of God, those who are preordained to be saved.
In my mind, this topic could be directed in a couple of ways.
If you'd prefer to have a religious/philosophical discussion with no scientific challenges to the claims you've made, then we should put this in Faith and Belief.
However, you have also claimed in your OP that science hasn't approached or discerned much, if anything, regarding consciousness, the mind, etc. If you want to discuss Cognitive and Brain Science, particularly what the state of current research is (becasue there is, in fact, a great deal of Cognitive research going on), then we should put your topic in one of the Science forums.
What kind of discussion do you want to have?
Edited by AdminSchraf, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 10:31 PM Faithful Servant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-29-2007 12:53 AM AdminSchraf has not replied

  
Faithful Servant
Junior Member (Idle past 6147 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 05-28-2007


Message 5 of 36 (402627)
05-29-2007 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminSchraf
05-28-2007 10:41 PM


I'm gonna say Faith and Belief, because what I say is heavily influenced by the Bible. But, I'm interested in what the scientific community has to say here also because, even though study is being conducted on cognition, I just don't feel it "measures up" to the accuracy and clarity of the Bible account. But, Faith and Belief is fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminSchraf, posted 05-28-2007 10:41 PM AdminSchraf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 05-29-2007 8:46 AM Faithful Servant has replied

  
AdminCoragyps
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 36 (402646)
05-29-2007 7:46 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 7 of 36 (402650)
05-29-2007 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faithful Servant
05-29-2007 12:53 AM


Faithfull Servant writes:
I'm interested in what the scientific community has to say here also because, even though study is being conducted on cognition, I just don't feel it "measures up" to the accuracy and clarity of the Bible account.
Care to specify which research does not measure up?
I would love to see you put the present research and it's predictive value about the mind and behaviour up against your bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-29-2007 12:53 AM Faithful Servant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-29-2007 10:07 PM Larni has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 36 (402657)
05-29-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faithful Servant
05-28-2007 9:34 PM


PRATT* no. CB400
From TalkOrigins.org:
quote:
Claim CB400:
Evolution cannot explain consciousness or free will.
Response:
1. This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing an explanation does not mean an explanation is impossible. And since we are barely beginning to understand what consciousness is, it is not surprising that we would not have its origin worked out yet.
In fact, preliminary explanations for the origin of consciousness have been proposed, although they are too complicated to try to summarize here (see Dennett 1991 and Minsky 1985). Much more experimentation and refinement is needed before we have a full-fledged theory of the origin of consciousness, but we have more than enough to know that such a theory is possible.
2. A factor that likely contributes to the claim of consciousness's inexplicability is the fact that many people do not want a naturalistic explanation of consciousness, since a natural consciousness does not fit easily with a divine soul. This threatens people's desire for a divine origin and immortality (but see Dennett 1991, 430, for immortality of a naturalistic consciousness). An examination of this point alone could fill a book. However, suffice it to say,
1. There is much evidence -- from genetic predispositions of behavior and personality, from brain injury studies, from brain imaging of healthy people -- that consciousness is naturalistic now. A natural origin would not matter much beyond that.
2. What we want has no bearing on what really is.
Why can't scientists account for this "unseen" aspect of life that we all know is there?
Who says they can't, FS? It's astoundingly obvious at this point that consciousness is a phenomenon of having a brain - nobody with no brain has any consciousness. Indeed, brain injuries literally change our consciousness, essentially proving that consciousness is what our brains do.
His revelation about this aspect of humanity was so great that, no one has been able to touch it since.
I've read the Bible many times, but one thing I don't remember was Jesus Christ offering his thoughts on neurology.
And as for "no one has been able to touch it," that's a pretty dubious claim. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the Bible is so great that there's nothing better? I would suggest that the majority of humans on Earth, who are not Christians and reject the Bible, would disagree.
*PRATT: "Point Refuted a Thousand Times."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 9:34 PM Faithful Servant has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 36 (402664)
05-29-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faithful Servant
05-28-2007 9:34 PM


Welcome to EvC, FS.
Well, I really can't add anything to what crashfrog has already posted, but my ego is far too big to pass this up.
It is true that so far we don't have a naturalistic explanation for human consciousness. However, not knowing the explanation is not the same as there not being an explanation at all. There have been many questions in science where we had to wait for the correct explanation. There are still many unanswered questions in science, but for many of these no one (not even creationists) doubt that we will eventually find the answer. I don't see why consciousness shouldn't be in this class.
Several examples come to mind. It was believed that the behavior of celestial objects were due to very different principles than the behavior of objects here on earth. But we now know that the same physical laws that explain phenomena here on earth also suffice to explain the phenomena we see in the sky.
Likewise, it was believed that life was due to very different principles than non-life. Again, we eventually learned that all the biochemical processes that add up to what we call "life" are just the result of ordinary matter acting according to the mundane laws of chemistry and physics.
In the same way, despite one's feeling that there must be something different about the human "soul", there is nothing to suggest that it cannot be explained in terms of neurobiology, even if we do not yet have an adequate theory.
In fact, there is plenty of reasons to think that it might just be the result of ordinary biology and chemistry. Injuries to the physical brain can result in severe changes in personality, as does the action of mundane chemical substances (so called narcotics). If this "consciousness" or "soul" has something to do with one's personality, with who a person really is, then it seems to be very deeply connected to the physical brain and its chemical workings. One is left wondering, in this case, what is there left for an immaterial, ineffable "something" to do in the way of providing an explanation.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 9:34 PM Faithful Servant has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 36 (402671)
05-29-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faithful Servant
05-28-2007 9:34 PM


Elcome to EvC, Faithful Servant,
Might it be because it is the ESSENCE of something else?
Why then do brain damaged people have this essence subtracted from? The answer? It is a corollary of the brains function.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 9:34 PM Faithful Servant has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 36 (402673)
05-29-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faithful Servant
05-28-2007 9:34 PM


Our minds have a capacity for understanding that is far and away leagues above and beyond any other so-called "species" that, comparing us to animals begins to sound preposterous.
Well ... with the single exception of grammatical speech, there are only quantitative differnces between what we can do and what chimps can do. But it is true that we have far and away the most intelligence, just as the elephant has the biggest nose.
By the way, what do you mean by so-called "species". Don't you think species exist? Why the "so-called" and the scare quotes?
And no one can explain it. For all of science's "physical" evidence, they can say absolutely nothing of the one thing that makes us who we are...
Sir, you exaggerate. Scientists can tell us lots of interesting things about the relation of the brain to its functions. There are doubtless things they can't tell us, but this is no reason to suppose that what is unexplained is supernatural. About two thousand five hundred years ago, Hippocrates wrote: "Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, there would be no end of divine things."
Today, we have a rather better understanding of epilepsy and of what is going on in the brain during an epileptic fit.
... because it has no "physical" properties to speak of.
"A blow to the head will confuse a man's thinking, a blow to the foot has no such effect, this cannot be the result of an immaterial soul." - Hereclitus.
But, there was one who lived, who laid out exactly what this "unseen property" of humanity was, how it came about, and what happens to it in the end. His name was Jesus Christ. His revelation about this aspect of humanity was so great that, no one has been able to touch it since.
Actually, I can think of lots of interesting facts about psychology which can't be found in the gospels.
As for saying exactly what this "unseen property" is ... no, not really. In fact, I can see nothing in the Bible which explicitly tells me whether my mind is immaterial or whether it is in fact instantiated in the physical structure and activity of my brain. The idea that I possess an immaterial soul seems to be a later philosophical concept not actually attested in Scripture.
---
This looks like an interesting topic. Welcome to the forums!
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 9:34 PM Faithful Servant has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 12 of 36 (402680)
05-29-2007 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faithful Servant
05-28-2007 9:34 PM


For all of science's "physical" evidence, they can say absolutely nothing of the one thing that makes us who we are, because it has no "physical" properties to speak of.
Then what do you make of this:
Humans restrain self-interest with moral and social values. They are the only species known to exhibit reciprocal fairness, which implies the punishment of other individuals' unfair behaviors, even if it hurts the punisher's economic self-interest. Reciprocal fairness has been demonstrated in the Ultimatum Game, where players often reject their bargaining partner's unfair offers. Despite progress in recent years, however, little is known about how the human brain limits the impact of selfish motives and implements fair behavior. Here we show that disruption of the right, but not the left, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) by low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation substantially reduces subjects' willingness to reject their partners' intentionally unfair offers, which suggests that subjects are less able to resist the economic temptation to accept these offers. Importantly, however, subjects still judge such offers as very unfair, which indicates that the right DLPFC plays a key role in the implementation of fairness-related behaviors.
Daria Knoch, et al., Science 3 November 2006 314: 829-832
or this:
The psychological and neurobiological processes underlying moral judgement have been the focus of many recent empirical studies. Of central interest is whether emotions play a causal role in moral judgement, and, in parallel, how emotion-related areas of the brain contribute to moral judgement. Here we show that six patients with focal bilateral damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a brain region necessary for the normal generation of emotions and, in particular, social emotions, produce an abnormally 'utilitarian' pattern of judgements on moral dilemmas that pit compelling considerations of aggregate welfare against highly emotionally aversive behaviours (for example, having to sacrifice one person's life to save a number of other lives). In contrast, the VMPC patients' judgements were normal in other classes of moral dilemmas. These findings indicate that, for a selective set of moral dilemmas, the VMPC is critical for normal judgements of right and wrong. The findings support a necessary role for emotion in the generation of those judgements.
Koenigs, et al., Nature 446, 908-911 (19 April 2007)
Those sound pretty physical to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 9:34 PM Faithful Servant has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5141 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 13 of 36 (402693)
05-29-2007 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faithful Servant
05-28-2007 9:34 PM


Servant wrote:
There seems to be so much evidence in favor of evolutionism and not so much in the way of rock-hard fact when it comes to creationism, mainly because religion is about faith and not fact.
You and I may think so, but creationists explicitly and repeatedly claim that their creationist claims are exactly that - about fact, and that their creationist claims are shown to be true by evidence, not by wishful thinking. So first, you may wish to talk with those fellow Christians who are creationist if you want to convince them that creationism isn’t about fact. Creationists say that creationism is very much about fact.
But, there is one area that believers (or Christians, to be more accurate) have up their sleeve, . . The heart. The mind. Consciousness.
First, why do you say Christians have that on their side more than, say, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or Jews? All of those and more have explanations about consciousness, many of them involving a “soul” as much as Christianity. Since they all have explanations, and the evidence doesn’t favor one over the others, why do you favor one over the others?
And no one can explain it. For all of science's "physical" evidence, they can say absolutely nothing of the one thing that makes us who we are, because it has no "physical" properties to speak of. And it's the one thing EVERYBODY belives in. Why can't scientists account for this "unseen" aspect of life that we all know is there? Might it be because it is the ESSENCE of something else? Something greater than our "physical" bodies can detect? No one, it seems, can say. But, there was one who lived, who laid out exactly what this "unseen property" of humanity was, how it came about, and what happens to it in the end. His name was Jesus Christ. His revelation about this aspect of humanity was so great that, no one has been able to touch it since. Sure, many scholars and philosophers waxed poetic about what they "belived", but none of them were as clear and consice as he was.
I’ve read the whole Bible, and the new testament several times, and I don’t think Jesus or the Bible said anything about consciousness that isn’t found in plenty of other sources, and all of it is vague, restatments of the obvious, and adds little to the conversation. You are right, that science hasn’t fully explained consciousness (more on that below), but neither has any of the religions, and certainly not Jesus or Christianity.
Many religions have renamed the problem (by calling it a “soul”), but renaming a problem doesn’t explain how or why a soul is conscious. They’ve also added a bunch of stories about going up or down or back and forth from other worlds or this one, all without any data for support. Even asking the question, as you have started to do in you post, is better than anything in the Bible, which doesn’t even ask how physical matter could be conscious. A fun, short play that addresses that is here:
http://www.atomfilms.com/film/made_meat.jsp (They’re made out of meat)
He spoke with authority about the condition of sin, right and wrong, and the hearts of men, and every single person living can attest to the truths about the inherent evil in the world because of sin, and that little "something" inside us that has a desire to do right.
He may have spoken with authority, and indeed seems to have done a great job communicating the thought of the day, but much of human nature is more completely and sensibly described by evolutionary psychology, which goes beyond simply calling some things “evil” and others “good”. Instead it goes on to show how evolutionary theory predicts, in detail, much of what we take for granted in human nature. Since many people are unfamiliar with it, maybe this would be a good thread to go over it. It’s an interesting and fun area of study.
So, for what might be the first time (at least for me), let's us sit down and talk about this aspect of humanity that, at the very least, all of us belive exists in one form or another.
Though I can only post a limited amount, It sounds fun - let’s discuss the soul or human nature (which I think is more what you are after). Have a great day-
-Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 9:34 PM Faithful Servant has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 14 of 36 (402746)
05-29-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faithful Servant
05-28-2007 9:34 PM


Faithful Servant writes:
For all of science's "physical" evidence, they can say absolutely nothing of the one thing that makes us who we are, because it has no "physical" properties to speak of.
Oh. I guess my I can give up studying for my degree in neuroscience then.
Science has certainly touched on consciousness, and you are right in one respect: we don't know exactly what it is, let alone how it occurs. But, we can touch it, we just haven't yet got gloves thin enough to grab it (imagine grabbing a pencil with boxing gloves on).
Faithful Servant writes:
Why can't scientists account for this "unseen" aspect of life that we all know is there?
As yet, we can't monitor the brain in enough detail to work this out (electrodes can measure a few hundred neurons, and fMRI can measure under a cubic centimetre of brain tissue. The human brain contains, by my calculations, an average of 70 million neurons per cubic centimetre, but trillions of synapses). That is why we can't see it - just as before microscopes were around we couldn't see bacteria.
Faithful Servant writes:
But, there was one who lived, who laid out exactly what this "unseen property" of humanity was, how it came about, and what happens to it in the end.
Go on. Maybe I can use his discoveries and publish in Nature Neuroscience.
Edited by Doddy, : fixed quote

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 9:34 PM Faithful Servant has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 15 of 36 (402756)
05-29-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faithful Servant
05-28-2007 9:34 PM


Faithful Servant
For all of science's "physical" evidence, they can say absolutely nothing of the one thing that makes us who we are, because it has no "physical" properties to speak of. And it's the one thing EVERYBODY belives in. Why can't scientists account for this "unseen" aspect of life that we all know is there?
Actually we have physical evidence of the mechanisms of consciousness and they are recorded on electroencephalogram and magnetic resonance imaging machines and can be manipulated through the electromagnetic force in trans-cranial magnetic stimulation.
So the phenomena is accounted for in essence if not in all details. The amount of research in studies of the subject are staggering to say the least as you can see by taking a trip to a local university library and checking it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faithful Servant, posted 05-28-2007 9:34 PM Faithful Servant has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024