Who raised Jesus from the dead?

[carpedm9587]

And you think the God of Christianity would approve of someone actualizing your ridiculous "thought experiment"?

Well - if the god of Christianity knows that "mind" precedes "brain" and is independent of it - and if the "self" is seated in "mind" - and if Sparko is right that no one can "earn" god's approval, and "faith" is all that is needed - I guess I'm not seeing a problem. What would this god's objection be?

[Mountain Man]

Well - if the god of Christianity knows that "mind" precedes "brain" and is independent of it - and if the "self" is seated in "mind" - and if Sparko is right that no one can "earn" god's approval, and "faith" is all that is needed - I guess I'm not seeing a problem. What would this god's objection be?

As Charles Babbage famously said, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

[carpedm9587]

As Charles Babbage famously said, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

Well - your question seemed to suggest that you believe your god would disapprove of what I suggested. So I'm asking if you can articulate the basis for this disapproval, given that the position is, "the mind is independent of the brain" and that clearly the mind is the seat of the "self" and not the brain. Apparently...you cannot?

[Mountain Man]

I have trouble believing that your question is asked with charity and a genuine desire to understand. The proverb "Do not cast pearls before swine" seems apropos.

[Tassman]

That only demonstrates that there appears to be a link between the mind and the brain. It doesn't tell us what that link is. Is the brain the source of the mind, or merely the conduit? Science can't answer that question.

It demonstrates that there is a material link between the mind and the brain; remove a part of the brain and neurosurgeons will tell you how the mind will be affected.

You're begging the question based on unstated metaphysical assumptions.

No metaphysics required or used.

[carpedm9587]

I have trouble believing that your question is asked with charity and a genuine desire to understand.

I'm not sure what charity has to do with anything. I don't usually ask questions to be charitable. However, I also don't usually ask a question unless I'm looking for an answer (well - the occasional rhetorical question notwithstanding).

The proverb "Do not cast pearls before swine" seems apropos.

Yeah - I find a lot of folks use that as a convenient mechanism for avoiding a discussion. Amazing how calling someone else a "pig" and labeling your own opinions "pearls" will do that for you.

[Tassman]

That's yet to be demonstrated.

No, it doesn't. You can't even get the most basic facts about the hypostatic union correct and you're delusional enough to think that you can show that the concept involves a logical contradiction?

Two different natures in one hypostasis or individual existence is not the same thing as one entity simultaneously being two different entities.

If we're going to use an analogy (without stretching it too far) it's probably closer to the dual-nature of light.

False analogy! Light has 'properties', NOT 'natures'.

[Tassman]

It's demonstrably true that brain trauma or dementia can severly impact behaviour. How much the mind itself is affected remains somewhat of a mystery.

No, the obvious corollary is that you're desperate for the existence of the mind to be dependent upon the existence of the brain, so you're willing to stretch the data to say something it doesn't.

You're projecting, the reverse is true.

"Anecdotal accounts of NDE's or religious mythology" is already far more than what you have for your position.

So, feel free to argue for the existence of leprechauns and the Greek gods on this basis.

[JonathanL]

Again - we have no "proof" - we have a great deal of evidence. Indeed - a very compelling piece of evidence, for me, is the one I cited: vast experience of brain with no mind - and no experience of mind with no brain.

I don't find that a very compelling piece of evidence at all.

You do know that I was once "predisposed" to Christian beliefs, right? I always find this rejoinder a little amusing, given that I moved away from Christianity on the basis of the evidence, not because I was "predisposed to the beliefs."

At least with regards to your belief that the mind is dependent on the brain for it's existence it doesn't seem to me like you had a very good justification at all to move towards that belief. At least not if you changed your mind based on the evidence that's currently available for that position. But perhaps you have some evidence for that belief that I haven't already encountered.

On that we will have to disagree. I can think of no rational basis for living your life in such a way as to protect your brain if the very seat of your self - your mind - does not depend upon it.

Because even if you can exist without a body it doesn't mean it's an optimal kind of existence. Even if I do believe that the mind doesn't depend upon the brain for it's existence there is no reason what so ever for me to try and free myself from my bodily constraints, simply because I have no idea how much ability I will have to interact with my surroundings (physical or spiritual) when I'm just a soul/mind without a body.

[JonathanL]

We're several pages in already (18 pages on my browser) and you've yet been able to demonstrate that there's a logical contradiction involved in the concept. All you've been able to demonstrate so far is that you're unable to correctly characterize the doctrine.


A nature might be the "sum total of a person's identity" in some definitions of the word, but it does not carry that meaning in the context of the hypostatic union.

False analogy! Light has 'properties', NOT 'natures'.

A nature is simply the group of 'properties' required for something to be considered to be a specific something. I.e if something has all the properties of a rock then it's a rock, if it has all the properties of water then it's water and so on. And if someone has all the properties that's necessary to be considered a human then that person is a human. Someone who has all the properties necessary to be considered to be both God and man would be a God-man.

[JonathanL]

You're projecting, the reverse is true.

I haven't even presented any evidence for my position, so no stretching is even possible on my part.

So, feel free to argue for the existence of leprechauns and the Greek gods on this basis.

I have no need to argue for the existence of something I don't believe in.

[Mountain Man]

It demonstrates that there is a material link between the mind and the brain; remove a part of the brain and neurosurgeons will tell you how the mind will be affected.

Again, that doesn't tell us if the brain is the source of the mind, or merely the conduit.

No metaphysics required or used.

This suggests that you are not even aware of or able to articulate the hidden premises that support your conclusion.

[carpedm9587]

I don't find that a very compelling piece of evidence at all.

I cannot say I am surprised. But consider the rest of what you believe, Chrawnus. We see many instances of light sources without light, but not instance of light without a light source. Do you also not find that compelling? Perhaps it is safe to believe that light "precedes" and is "independent of" a light source? This dynamic is actually pretty compelling evidence for a lot (most?) of us. I'm not sure how you can blithely turn a blind eye to it.

At least with regards to your belief that the mind is dependent on the brain for it's existence it doesn't seem to me like you had a very good justification at all to move towards that belief. At least not if you changed your mind based on the evidence that's currently available for that position. But perhaps you have some evidence for that belief that I haven't already encountered.

I suspect you've encountered most of it. Based on your posts, and your comment above, I suspect you've dismissed most of it out of hand. I'd be very curious to know what evidence you've gathered that "mind precedes brain and is independent of it."

Because even if you can exist without a body it doesn't mean it's an optimal kind of existence.

That would seem to fly in the face of the Christian beliefs about the sinful nature of the material, and the desire for this post-corporeal experience with god that will transcend physical life.

Even if I do believe that the mind doesn't depend upon the brain for it's existence there is no reason what so ever for me to try and free myself from my bodily constraints, simply because I have no idea how much ability I will have to interact with my surroundings (physical or spiritual) when I'm just a soul/mind without a body.

It seems odd to think that you need a body to interact spiritually. And why is interacting physically held in such high esteem? After all, if the seat of the self is mind, the body is superfluous, is it not. Your existence on this earth is fleeting in the scale of the eternity you believe (I think?) that mind exists?

I guess I'm not finding this line of argumentation all that convincing.

[JonathanL]

I cannot say I am surprised. But consider the rest of what you believe, Chrawnus. We see many instances of light sources without light, but not instance of light without a light source. Do you also not find that compelling? Perhaps it is safe to believe that light "precedes" and is "independent of" a light source? This dynamic is actually pretty compelling evidence for a lot (most?) of us. I'm not sure how you can blithely turn a blind eye to it.

I mean, light is independent of the light source after it has been created. The photons will continue existing regardless of whether the light source is destroyed or not and their continued existence do not depend on the light source itself. So we do have instances of light without a light source, even if that light needs a source to begin existing.


I'm not "blithely turning a blind eye to it". I simply don't find it compelling.

I suspect you've encountered most of it. Based on your posts, and your comment above, I suspect you've dismissed most of it out of hand. I'd be very curious to know what evidence you've gathered that "mind precedes brain and is independent of it."

My position is not that "mind precedes brain and is independent of it." My position is that God's mind precedes matter and is independent of it. There does seem to be a relationship between our minds and our brains, but nothing I've seen so far has led me to think this relationship is so tightly connected that one will cease to exist without the other.

That would seem to fly in the face of the Christian beliefs about the sinful nature of the material, and the desire for this post-corporeal experience with god that will transcend physical life.

That sounds more like a gnostic belief than any Christian belief I've ever encountered. Are you sure you used to be a Christian? Matter being sinful and desiring a post-corporeal experience are not orthodox Christian beliefs.

It seems odd to think that you need a body to interact spiritually. And why is interacting physically held in such high esteem? After all, if the seat of the self is mind, the body is superfluous, is it not. Your existence on this earth is fleeting in the scale of the eternity you believe (I think?) that mind exists?

Why would the body be superfluous? According to Christian dogma we are all going to be resurrected in physical bodies that we will live with for the rest of eternity.

And it's not that I think I need a body to interact spiritually. It's that I have no idea what capacity I will have to interact with others when I'm a disembodied spirit, and I have no desire to find out.

I guess I'm not finding this line of argumentation all that convincing.

[carpedm9587]

I mean, light is independent of the light source after it has been created. The photons will continue existing regardless of whether the light source is destroyed or not and their continued existence do not depend on the light source itself. So we do have instances of light without a light source, even if that light needs a source to begin existing.

I think you know what was meant, Chrawnus. Light cannot come into being without a source.

I'm not "blithely turning a blind eye to it". I simply don't find it compelling.

That much is clear.

My position is not that "mind precedes brain and is independent of it." My position is that God's mind precedes matter and is independent of it. There does seem to be a relationship between our minds and our brains, but nothing I've seen so far has led me to think this relationship is so tightly connected that one will cease to exist without the other.

Then I think you are ignoring an enormous body of evidence.

That sounds more like a gnostic belief than any Christian belief I've ever encountered. Are you sure you used to be a Christian? Matter being sinful and desiring a post-corporeal experience are not orthodox Christian beliefs.

Chrawnus - I just came back from a funeral. The funeral language was filled with references to the glory of the afterlife, the better place the deceased was now and we all aspire to, and the freedom from corporeal bonds. Christian language is full of references to "fleshly desires" and the war between "flesh and spirit." Are you truly going to deny that Christian language is replete with these references?

Why would the body be superfluous? According to Christian dogma we are all going to be resurrected in physical bodies that we will live with for the rest of eternity.

Yeah - it HAS been a lot of decades. I had completely forgotten about the "resurrection of the flesh." I was just thinking about it yesterday at the funeral. The deceased was cremated, which used to be a big no-o in come Christian circles because "there would be no body to resurrect." It was an odd position, given that the human body that is NOT cremated rots to nothing in a fairly short period of time.

So this is the FIRST response to my little "thought experiment" that actually addresses the question, instead of simply sputtering away into some kind of outrage. So thanks for that response. I withdraw my observation that the mind-without-brain clan is being inconsistent.

And it's not that I think I need a body to interact spiritually. It's that I have no idea what capacity I will have to interact with others when I'm a disembodied spirit, and I have no desire to find out.

Chicken...