Are we souls or are we machines?

[seer]

Can you elaborate on why you can't? Luke had no problem elaborating Paul's experience, which must mean that Paul had no problem telling Luke.

Not your business nor will it convince you....

[Whag]

Not your business nor will it convince you....

I like your presumption that I won't be convinced. My believing the incident isn't as important as seeing the distinction between it and hallucination. Since Jesus seemingly equipped the mind with the ability to emulate numinous experience, that distinction you cited couldn't be more important to know.

[seer]

I like your presumption that I won't be convinced. My believing the incident isn't as important as seeing the distinction between it and hallucination. Since Jesus seemingly equipped the mind with the ability to emulate numinous experience, that distinction you cited couldn't be more important to know.

What makes you an expert on what is or isn't a hallucination?

[Whag]

What makes you an expert on what is or isn't a hallucination?

Do I have to be an expert on that? You implied what you experienced is more powerful than psilocybin or DMT. Of course that will illicit questions about the nature of the encounter.

[seer]

Do I have to be an expert on that? You implied what you experienced is more powerful than psilocybin or DMT. Of course that will illicit questions about the nature of the encounter.

No Whag, I did not say that the experiences were "more powerful" per-say than LSD, but they were completely different. You see Whag, I could tell you the words, but they would never do justice to the internal experience or sense of the events. It would be like trying to explain what love was to a person who never fell in love - the words could never do justice to the reality.

[phank]

Do I have to be an expert on that? You implied what you experienced is more powerful than psilocybin or DMT. Of course that will illicit questions about the nature of the encounter.

Uh, the word you want is "elicit", to draw forth. Illicit means illegal, and probably isn't what you meant.

[Whag]

No Whag, I did not say that the experiences were "more powerful" per-say than LSD, but they were completely different. You see Whag, I could tell you the words, but they would never do justice to the internal experience or sense of the events. It would be like trying to explain what love was to a person who never fell in love - the words could never do justice to the reality.

This is why compulsory belief is problematic. One cannot identify with an experience unless one has undergone it. It's like trying to explain love to a person who has never experienced love. If incredulity is that natural of a reaction, then expecting someone to be persuaded by a Road to Damascus encounter is foolish.

[Whag]

Uh, the word you want is "elicit", to draw forth. Illicit means illegal, and probably isn't what you meant.

Sloppy touchscreen typing and autocorrect are a bad combo.

[firstfloor]

That is the point - we all agree to call it real. Whether it is or not.

So we agree, it is axiomatic. The question of whether the world might not be real is useless.

[seer]

So we agree, it is axiomatic. The question of whether the world might not be real is useless.

Right, but when JimL made the point about certain experiences only being "in your head" I had to make the point that in the end it is all "in your head." And the question is generally useless except to point out that we all approach reality by assumption.

[seer]

This is why compulsory belief is problematic. One cannot identify with an experience unless one has undergone it. It's like trying to explain love to a person who has never experienced love. If incredulity is that natural of a reaction, then expecting someone to be persuaded by a Road to Damascus encounter is foolish.

Well the Road to Damascus experience would be something different. There was an external voice and an actual person (the risen Christ) speaking with Paul. And I'm not suggesting that one needs a personal experience akin to mine to repent of his sins and receive Christ as Lord and Savior. You could do that this very night...

But if you are looking for things more empirical I would point to experiences like this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...hudson+blanket

[Whag]

Well the Road to Damascus experience would be something different. There was an external voice and an actual person (the risen Christ) speaking with Paul. And I'm not suggesting that one needs a personal experience akin to mine to repent of his sins and receive Christ as Lord and Savior. You could do that this very night...

Thanks! Well at least we’re narrowing it down. The experience that you cited was a conversion experience, which you described as being more real than psilocybin. Psilocybin is a bit more mild than dimethyltriptamine, which exists in your skull. That’s a plausible explanation, though admittedly maybe a wrong one but at least one that justifies a skeptic’s skepticism. It’s also hard to know because you don’t want to divulge what happened and what you learned that day.

But if you are looking for things more empirical I would point to experiences like this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...hudson+blanket

Hard to know if you’re serious on that one. I’m not even religious, and I have had about four of those types of serendipitious experiences in my life.

It’s important to note that skeptics like myself aren’t skeptical to be jerks and try to discourage you. One of the moral reasons I don’t easily interpret events like your specific blanket endowment as God’s gift is because so many children whose needs and prayers eclipse yours and mine go without warm blankets. Some of them live on the street. I understand, it’s an acknowledgement of gratitude to interpret it that way, but, for me, there’s too much mental conflict in assuming Heaven wanted me to have a fancy blanket while kids froze elsewhere. I would feel almost guilty to conclude God thought me so special.

Therefore, I would be grateful to those good friends alone and pay it forward tenfold. That's pure undefiled religion.

[seer]

Thanks! Well at least we’re narrowing it down. The experience that you cited was a conversion experience, which you described as being more real than psilocybin. Psilocybin is a bit more mild than dimethyltriptamine, which exists in your skull. That’s a plausible explanation, though admittedly maybe a wrong one but at least one that justifies a skeptic’s skepticism. It’s also hard to know because you don’t want to divulge what happened and what you learned that day.

Well I was never big on "shrooms" (mushrooms) - I was into LSD in the late sixties. These experiences were nothing like those, but just as powerful - in a different way. But like I said it would be very difficult to explain the internal sense or reality of falling in love to someone who never did. Words just don't do it justice.

But since you have been so kind, I will try. First let me tell you these experiences only happen to me in these past 22 years about 4 or 5 times. Early on it was the sense of coming out of a fog into the light. A deep realization that I had finally found truth, clarity. A deep sense that I had come home. To a home I never knew existed. Then there was contact - back in 1990 I never head the word Numinous - but later reading seemed to confirm that, that was something like what I was experiencing. There was a powerful sense of a Presence - I was filled with both a horrible dread and unspeakable joy. In two particular instances I could no longer stand, I began shaking - I knew if this kept up I would die on the spot - I begged God to stop. In both cases it stopped immediately. Now, I said the words, but they could never do justice to the internal experience or realization.

Hard to know if you’re serious on that one. I’m not even religious, and I have had about four of those types of serendipitious experiences in my life.

I'm sorry there were to many specific correlations for me to accept common coincidence. Of course I don't expect you to see it that way.

It’s important to note that skeptics like myself aren’t skeptical to be jerks and try to discourage you. One of the moral reasons I don’t easily interpret events like your specific blanket endowment as God’s gift is because so many children whose needs and prayers eclipse yours and mine go without warm blankets. Some of them live on the street. I understand, it’s an acknowledgement of gratitude to interpret it that way, but, for me, there’s too much mental conflict in assuming Heaven wanted me to have a fancy blanket while kids froze elsewhere. I would feel almost guilty to conclude God thought me so special.

Well at some point we all die, I will die. We all suffer to degrees, I suffer - that does not negate the possibility of God arranging for me to get that blanket. I have no mental conflict - just gratitude. And as a believer I assume that God knows what He is doing. Even with freezing kids.

Therefore, I would be grateful to those good friends alone and pay it forward tenfold. That's pure undefiled religion.

Doing good is, well, good...

[Darth Executor]

One has to go beyond science to achieve such a conclusion.

Untrue. At best you could claim one has to go beyond science to demonstrate this conclusion to others. But science starts with observation, and I observe my sentience every second of every waking moment. What science can and does, based on what I've seen when skimming this thread, is that the physical can produce machines that act as if they are sentient. Sentience is inherently irrational in a physical realm that works according to known laws. The appearance of sentience (a very complex machine claiming to be self aware) does not and there is no physical way of distinguishing between the two. I've often pondered whether people like you cannot really comprehend what sentience actually is because you are not really sentient and thus cannot comprehend something you have no personal experience with. We tend to assume others are like us in the most fundamental of aspects but that may not necessarily be true. It is perhaps better if my self-aware peers cease to torment the legions of the soulless with experiences they can never understand.

[phank]

Untrue. At best you could claim one has to go beyond science to demonstrate this conclusion to others. But science starts with observation, and I observe my sentience every second of every waking moment. What science can and does, based on what I've seen when skimming this thread, is that the physical can produce machines that act as if they are sentient. Sentience is inherently irrational in a physical realm that works according to known laws.

Could you kindly cite those "known laws"? As far as I can tell from reading a dozen or so articles, there is no disconnect between the brain and the consciousness that the brain produces. The mind is what the brain does for a living. It's certainly a very complex process, but nothing "inherently irrational" is observed or even proposed by anyone seriously studying consciousness.

The appearance of sentience (a very complex machine claiming to be self aware) does not

Classic case of begging the question. The proposition is that you ARE a complex, self-aware machine. Biological, not silicon based, but nonetheless a machine in the ordinary sense.

and there is no physical way of distinguishing between the two.

Between the two what? There are entirely valid, reliable ways of distinguishing between you and anyone else. Are you referring to the Turing Test? That's not a physical similarity, that's an interface issue.

I've often pondered whether people like you cannot really comprehend what sentience actually is because you are not really sentient and thus cannot comprehend something you have no personal experience with.

I'm not sure I understand this assertion. Are you saying that nobody can have "real" comprehension of anything without personal experience? Where I live, plenty of people who have never played football nonetheless show a pretty complete understanding of it.

We tend to assume others are like us in the most fundamental of aspects but that may not necessarily be true. It is perhaps better if my self-aware peers cease to torment the legions of the soulless with experiences they can never understand.

Actually, people are highly skilled, probably from birth, at understanding how people are alike in general and how they differ as individuals. There is plenty of experience to go by. The golden rule is promulgated, and works, in all known human cultures for that very reason. There really IS such a thing as human nature, and if there were not, we could not communicate, cooperate, or co-exist.