And I Thought Riskas Was Powerful Against Mormonism!!!

[_honorentheos]

Within the context of Carroll's idea of...the brain dies, atoms cease to exist, and self goes "poof", I think that D&C 88 has something to look at and come under consideration. Think of it...dark matter/energy...95% or so of the universe. Quantum theory. There is SO much that we don't fully understand about what we know is there but cannot adequately measure and/or see. To go the direction that Sean Carroll has traveled I think is rather unreasonable, knowing that 'matter' may go way beyond our current understanding. I don't think human Spirit and its potential interaction with mind and body should simply be thrown out the window because we are not able to measure/see it.

How long down the road do you think it will be before we completely understand dark matter/energy?

Anyway, I won't argue with you and try to sway you from a position of being a strict materialist...but I'm in disagreement with the idea of shrink wrapping consciousness and the 'soul' into something to be non-existent and/or immaterial based upon incomplete knowledge and understanding.

Regards,
MG

Carroll addressed all of this in the link, MG. At least the parts regarding the unknown in science and it's implications for his claims if not engaging with the insights of Section 88 like, "Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made." because Jesus is nuclear fusion I guess.

Your argument above is classic god of the gaps.

You might consider attempting to reconcile consciousness and self-awareness being independent of our biological form (intelligence, light, whatever you want to call it) and the fact it can completely disappear and come back through manipulation of a material brain. Where does consciousness go if it's independent of the brain? Or if intertwined what does it mean it can effectively cease to exist, light switched off given the right conditions?

[_Gadianton]

He says that IF there were anything other than atom (physical atoms I presume) they WOULD HAVE FOUND THE EVIDENCE OF IT.

Another religionist posted something similar in the comments, saying further that he contradicted himself because he also said science was still learning new things.

What he said is that if there is anything else withing Quantum Field Theory, they would have found the evidence for it. In other words, there are no undiscovered particles etc. The Mormon view in particular of spirit as matter is toast.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Well I'm not open minded to being close minded.

Regards,
MG

Please answer

How is lacking knowledge a course? I am undecided, I take no position on the existence of god or gods. Why do you believe in god? Is there a reason other than wishful thinking?

[_Gadianton]

Stem,

"That is the atoms that make us up have a duplicate spiritual duplicate. "

There are several possible problems with this, depending on exactly what you mean. First, the typical rejection of "materialism" is that matter can't account for something as profound as mind. What you seem to be saying is that matter can account for mind, and spirit stuff holds the same functional relations. In other words, spirit doesn't help explain anything, not even in a god-of-gaps way.

Fine, this is about your position, not the typical theist position. The biggest problem with your position is now we have two of you. One is spirit, one is matter, but both would have their own first person experience of the world. The spirit you, in other words, isn't really you. What would be the difference between there being a spirit double, and say, scientists scan your brain enough times to discover all the functional relations, and then program a computer with those relations? What if that same program is copied twenty-seven times? There could just as well be twenty-seven spiritual duplicates. Would all those be "you"?

[_Philo Sofee]

MG
Well I'm not open minded to being close minded.

We see you are also not open minded to integrating evidence that goes against your faith, evidence that has very strong probability you are simply mistaken. You are entirely closed minded to evidence of any kind if it shows your religious thinking is wrong. You fool none of us. I suspect you don't really fool yourself all that much either. You put on a show appearing to be objective and willing to entertain it, but from the time you have been posting here, you have given yourself away. It's a beautiful demonstration of the fatality of faith. It really does prevent you from knowing.

[_mentalgymnast]

You might consider attempting to reconcile consciousness and self-awareness being independent of our biological form (intelligence, light, whatever you want to call it) and the fact it can completely disappear and come back through manipulation of a material brain. Where does consciousness go if it's independent of the brain? Or if intertwined what does it mean it can effectively cease to exist, light switched off given the right conditions?

I've thought about this. The way that I've looked at it is along this line. The brain is the hard drive or the spinning disk. The memories/knowledge/personality are the software running on the hard drive. If the material brain is manipulated/damaged in any way the operation/manifestation of the software program is in limbo and/or the program crashes. If the hard disk/brain is repaired and/or comes back online the underlying software is able to run the program...memories/knowledge/personality again.

Alzheimers...hard drive breakdown. Schizophrenia and the like...I'd think a combination software and the spinning disk/hard drive...brain.

To think that there is 'finer matter' attuned and/or attached at the subatomic level...quantum level(?)...to the goings on and operations of the software running in the brain is not unreasonable. When we die the software meshed with Spirit releases the Spirit to eternity. The brain/hard drive dies as the atoms morph into primordial elements.

I'm sure there are holes here...but that's the way...on a basic level that I've tried to wrap my mind around it. Mind body duality? I don't think so. I think that everything is running in tandem and as long as the hard drive/brain is operating normally we can see the software running. It is the software that is dependent on the brain and carries and/or meshes its 'learning' into a code that the Spirit can act as a carrier for when the brain dies.

Now how one separates and/or differentiates between the wetware/brain and the software (whatever that is...), who knows?

As some here would say at this point..."You're just prattling along and not making any sense." Maybe. Maybe not.

OK. Don't laugh too loud.

Hey, if neuroscientists haven't been able to pin down what consciousness/mind is, I can play with it a bit and throw some 'Spirit' in there too, can't I?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG
Well I'm not open minded to being close minded.

We see you are also not open minded to integrating evidence that goes against your faith, evidence that has very strong probability you are simply mistaken. You are entirely closed minded to evidence of any kind if it shows your religious thinking is wrong. You fool none of us. I suspect you don't really fool yourself all that much either. You put on a show appearing to be objective and willing to entertain it, but from the time you have been posting here, you have given yourself away. It's a beautiful demonstration of the fatality of faith. It really does prevent you from knowing.

Hey Philo, it's kind of hard to carry on a conversation with someone that comes back and essentially says, "No you're not." And, "You're really not who you say you are."

It's hard to play with that.

Regards,
MG

[_DoubtingThomas]

Hey, if neuroscientists haven't been able to pin down what consciousness/mind is, I can play with it a bit and throw some 'Spirit' in there too, can't I?

Regards,
MG

Sure, as speculation if you want.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hey, if neuroscientists haven't been able to pin down what consciousness/mind is, I can play with it a bit and throw some 'Spirit' in there too, can't I?

Regards,
MG

Sure, as speculation if you want.

What else can you do with that which is wrapped up with and/or contains unknowns?

Regards,
MG

[_Philo Sofee]

MG
Hey Philo, it's kind of hard to carry on a conversation with someone that comes back and essentially says, "No you're not." And, "You're really not who you say you are."

It's hard to play with that.

I sincerely can't take much of anything you say seriously anymore, sorry.