|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 31, 2019 15:16:15 GMT
And when you say that to someone whose family was lost to a tsunami, or to parents whose five year old will be dead in one year from cancer, how should they understand its application in their lives? Things of this nature are revealed to the heart, not to the mind. The mind can never understand the things of God. There are many scriptures on healing in the Bible. Do all people that claim God's healing get healed?...NO! Some do and some don't. I understand you now. When it come to God's ways, mindlessness is the surest path to discernment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 16:39:06 GMT
Anyone who thinks they know 'how the world is' is a liar. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know. The human mind is an unfathomable mystery, as is the Yes, the human mind is an "unfathomable mystery," which is why when you pick up a 1000+ page textbook on cognitive/neuroscience it just says "unfathomable mystery" on every page. We still concretely know very little about the human mind. And there are countless things that scientific consensus has considered irrefutably factual that turned out to be plain wrong. But it’s the wrong point for him to be making anyway, and almost irrelevant - he should’ve said the human “essence” or something along those lines, through a spiritual perspective the mind/body are miraculous circuitry that carry “you” here. Though I take it you’re a fairly strict rationalist from your posts and don’t like to entertain this sort of thinking, because there’s no hard proof of it. We may be coming from very different places, as while I am not religious, I am not convinced that human rationality - in our current state of evolution, at least - holds the key to certain things. Or is even capable of understanding what the key would look like.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2019 17:17:58 GMT
We still concretely know very little about the human mind. And there are countless things that scientific consensus has considered irrefutably factual that turned out to be plain wrong. Examples? Since they are "countless" you should easily be able to document at least half a dozen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 17:24:12 GMT
We still concretely know very little about the human mind. And there are countless things that scientific consensus has considered irrefutably factual that turned out to be plain wrong. Examples? Since they are "countless" you should easily be able to document at least half a dozen. A quick Google of "when science was wrong about the brain" yielded this whopper. There are several more. www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2016/07/06/could-brain-research-for-the-past-15-years-be-wrong/
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2019 18:13:54 GMT
Examples? Since they are "countless" you should easily be able to document at least half a dozen. A quick Google of "when science was wrong about the brain" yielded this whopper. Hardly a whopper. Trivial, in fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 18:18:23 GMT
A quick Google of "when science was wrong about the brain" yielded this whopper. Hardly a whopper. Trivial, in fact. 40,000 research studies possibly going out the window trivial? Lol, I wonder if all the researchers and investors in said research feel the same way?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 31, 2019 18:18:31 GMT
We still concretely know very little about the human mind. And there are countless things that scientific consensus has considered irrefutably factual that turned out to be plain wrong. Examples? Since they are "countless" you should easily be able to document at least half a dozen. Not to mention even if that was true that's just more God of the Gapism.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2019 18:48:14 GMT
40,000 research studies possibly going out the window trivial? Yes, trivial given the context. Remember, the claim was that there are countless examples of scientists forming a consensus over some "truth" in brain science that turned out to be wrong. You didn't produce so much as one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 19:01:40 GMT
40,000 research studies possibly going out the window trivial? Yes, trivial given the context. Remember, the claim was that there are countless examples of scientists forming a consensus over some "truth" in brain science that turned out to be wrong. You didn't produce so much as one. I think science is wonderful. It is a fine tool. But mistakes happen, all the time, and what we thought to be true gets redefined and science moves on. I'm not about to dismiss the mistakes as trivial. This flaw lead to many studies that told us how we believe the brain works to be flawed. Science isn't perfect. It took me about a one minute Google to find that one I'm sure I could find more. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 31, 2019 19:08:16 GMT
And when you say that to someone whose family was lost to a tsunami, or to parents whose five year old will be dead in one year from cancer, how should they understand its application in their lives? Things of this nature are revealed to the heart, not to the mind. The mind can never understand the things of God. There are many scriptures on healing in the Bible. Do all people that claim God's healing get healed?...NO! Some do and some don't. That's why there are no artificial limbs ever left behind at Lourdes then I guess?
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2019 19:09:11 GMT
This flaw lead to many studies that told us how we believe the brain works to be flawed. Science isn't perfect. Again, the mistake was about a narrow set of very trivial issues, not anything deeply or truly important about how the mind works, not anything major about which a consensus was ever formed.
It's like you are making special effort to ignore the context of the issue to focus on little pebbles you were able to find via a Google search. Good boy, you found some pebbles. My concern is with broader issues that are actually important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 19:16:35 GMT
This flaw lead to many studies that told us how we believe the brain works to be flawed. Science isn't perfect. Again, the mistake was about a narrow set of very trivial issues, not anything deeply or truly important about how the mind works, not anything major about which a consensus was ever formed.
It's like you are making special effort to ignore the context of the issue to focus on little pebbles you were able to find via a Google search. Good boy, you found some pebbles. My concern is with broader issues that are actually important.
From the article: How is this a little pebble?
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2019 20:06:11 GMT
How is this a little pebble? Because they "might" (not are, "might") be wrong about very trivial, low level things, not anything important about which a consensus had already been formed.
Here is an example of something that would actually be impressive: what if we were to discover that the FFA, the fusiform face area, actually did not process information about faces? For decades there has been a consensus that this part of the brain was essential for processing that specific domain of visual information. To discover that we were somehow wrong about that fact (because it is more or less considered a fact today) would cause jaws to drop everywhere in the field.
Or even bigger: what if we we were to discover that there is no modularity at all in the brain? That is, there are no areas of the brain dedicated to processing certain types of information above others. That would almost require starting over from scratch.
Because I'm actually very familiar with this field and understand the big picture of where were are at with the biological understanding of consciousness, I can recognize that the examples you are giving are interesting but ultimately not very important. They don't shake anything up.
And if you understand the context, the poster I was responding to was (falsely) implying that we are completely lost in our scientific understanding of the mind, so lost that scientists keep finding out they are wrong about important things which they had first formed agreement around. That is absolutely not the case and your pebbles do nothing to show otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 21:39:39 GMT
How is this a little pebble? Because they "might" (not are, "might") be wrong about very trivial, low level things, not anything important about which a consensus had already been formed.
Here is an example of something that would actually be impressive: what if we were to discover that the FFA, the fusiform face area, actually did not process information about faces? For decades there has been a consensus that this part of the brain was essential for processing that specific domain of visual information. To discover that we were somehow wrong about that fact (because it is more or less considered a fact today) would cause jaws to drop everywhere in the field.
Or even bigger: what if we we were to discover that there is no modularity at all in the brain? That is, there are no areas of the brain dedicated to processing certain types of information above others. That would almost require starting over from scratch.
Because I'm actually very familiar with this field and understand the big picture of where were are at with the biological understanding of consciousness, I can recognize that the examples you are giving are interesting but ultimately not very important. They don't shake anything up.
And if you understand the context, the poster I was responding to was (falsely) implying that we are completely lost in our scientific understanding of the mind, so lost that scientists keep finding out they are wrong about important things which they had first formed agreement around. That is absolutely not the case and your pebbles do nothing to show otherwise.
I'm not one to claim authority on the subject. I just see articles stating flawed studies. I'll leave it to others to determine the important brain science from the trivial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 21:43:16 GMT
We still concretely know very little about the human mind. And there are countless things that scientific consensus has considered irrefutably factual that turned out to be plain wrong. Examples? Since they are "countless" you should easily be able to document at least half a dozen. You're kidding, right? Sure, here's a few - Phrenology The earth growing Tabula Rasa Treating anxiety disorders with SSRIs (and this nonsense is still widely shilled) Joint Hypermobility Syndrome being a separate entity from Ehlers Danlos Type III (+ lots of other things regarding connective tissue disorders)
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Dec 31, 2019 22:23:10 GMT
You're kidding, right? Sure, here's a few - These examples don't work. In fact, they are kind of silly.
There was never a consensus that this was true and at any rate those folks who believed it did so before anything resembling a modern science of consciousness. Fail. Nothing to do with the science of consciousness. Fail.
There was never a consensus that this was true and at any rate those folks who believed it did so before anything resembling a modern science of consciousness. Fail.
If this is still going on with official blessing from the scientific community, then the jury is still out. Fail.
Nothing to do with the science of consciousness. Fail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Dec 31, 2019 22:28:35 GMT
God allows suffering for the same reason you do. If there were no suffering or pain we wouldn't be alive. It's part of a package deal. What kind of suffering are you talking about? Why do you imagine suffering or pain is necessary to be alive or to feel like you're alive? What about some people who think there is some sort of eternal idyllic afterlife with no suffering? Do you think they imagine that life won't be "living?" I don't know of anyone who seeks suffering for suffering sake. Pain? Sure some exercise until they hurt...but that is pain with a goal that isn't the pain. And yes some medical procedures are painful, but recovery is the goal...not pain or suffering. and I guess some religious types deprive themselves...but the goal seems to be religious benefit. People, other than masochists or the insane don't seem suffering for suffering sake. Who do you think seeks suffering for suffering sake? You don't understand. You are not in tune spiritually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Dec 31, 2019 22:33:26 GMT
Things of this nature are revealed to the heart, not to the mind. The mind can never understand the things of God. There are many scriptures on healing in the Bible. Do all people that claim God's healing get healed?...NO! Some do and some don't. I understand you now. When it come to God's ways, mindlessness is the surest path to discernment.
Not so. We are spirit people housed in a earthy body.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Dec 31, 2019 23:26:03 GMT
I understand you now. When it come to God's ways, mindlessness is the surest path to discernment.
Not so. We are spirit people housed in a earthy body. Are you Heeeyyy?
|
|
|
|
Post by You_Got_A_Stew_Goin_Baby on Jan 1, 2020 0:28:21 GMT
Cause after all these years, it’s the only thing that can still get him off.
|
|
