User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 55

  1. #41
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    That's too easy. Just cite any other branch of psychology which explains things better than behaviorism. For instance, how does behaviorism explain that it takes longer for us to process information in a list of 10 items versus a list of 3 items assuming the same reward?
    different stimuli elicit different behaviors. processing speed/reaction speed is a behavior.

    did i understand your example correctly? (i'm stoned)

  2. #42
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    Is the brain the source of faith?

    Can brain imaging prove or disprove that the brain is the source of faith?



    Related article:
    What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith - TIME
    The pattern sequence change the number according to the caller?
    Yes.
    Why?
    Ask the caller.

  3. #43
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    We know that faith is a conscious choice, and that conscious choices are somehow made in the brain. Thus the brain is the source of faith in as much as faith is conscious and observable. However, this observation doesn't preclude the existence of a soul, which would theoretically have control over the brain's function, and thus still be the source not only of faith, but of all conscious choice and free will as well. If the soul exists, it could be said to exist on a different plane of existence, and that while the brain is definitely the source of faith on the physical plane of existence, it may or may not only be relaying/conveying the will of the soul. This can not be shown one way or the other.
    Well said!

  4. #44
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    You could be right.

    But what makes it so necessary to postulate the existence of a definable object called a "soul," if we can explain behavior on a more observable level and the construct of a soul seems superfluous?

    To me, that's the large issue: The necessity of having a soul at all to explain anything only exists because of preconceived "religious" beliefs. To make the theology (or whatever spiritual framework one is inclined to) work, suddenly we need to toss in the construct of a soul. We want it to be true to fit our ideas, so we develop some rationale to explain it.

    The existence of the soul isn't really derived from real-live evidence, which is why people still argue about whether or not it exists.

    And it's just funny because the early Jews from which Judeo-Christian beliefs [for a soul] spawn from seemed to view this physical, current life as the "spiritual reality." There was no separate soul from the body; the body WAS the person.

    Which is why the clean/unclean laws were SO large to them, and sins against the body were BIG sins (no tattoos, no mutilation, no sexual promiscuities, no cross-gender behavior, etc.). Because the body WAS the person. Sinners had their bodies routinely violated; sinners and the damned often had their bodies left out to rot or be eaten by birds and jackals and whatnot. Physical death was the literal punishment for sin; it was damnation.

    When you died, your body was interred into "the grave [Sheol]," which was another way of saying the Underworld. That body was you. And the Jews believed that God would one day restore life TO that body -- that JHVH would resurrect the dead who were faithful while the unfaithful were left dead, rotted, in their graves.

    (This is the holdover in Christian theology... that the resurrection of the BODY is essential, that we have bodies at ALL even if we want to view ourselves as having "souls" per se. We aren't "souls," our bodies are us.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #45
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    But what makes it so necessary to postulate the existence of a definable object called a "soul," if we can explain behavior on a more observable level and the construct of a soul seems superfluous?
    Nothing Belief in a soul is just that: a belief. The existence of souls can't be proven, any more than the existence of God.

  6. #46
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wandering View Post
    Nothing Belief in a soul is just that: a belief. The existence of souls can't be proven, any more than the existence of God.
    Well, then, why not believe in an endless host of things [Ne gone wild] just because we want to?

    We seem awfully selective in the things we are willing to believe in without causal links.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #47
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    of course my premise isn't proven. and you're right, i am a behaviorist. but my logic is sound at least
    Well, you're right about that... I can't fault your logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    do you want to challenge behaviorism? if so, how? i'd definitely like to defend it if necessary.
    All right. The classic Freudian approach to the mind is outmoded in a hundred ways, but it has one important strength at least: It recognizes cognition. Cognition provides a coherent explanation for altruism, even altruism to the point of self-sacrifice.

    Can behaviorist theory provide an alternative explanation for altruistic self-sacrifice?

    EDIT: I hope this isn't considered a derail. It pertains to the OP, I think, in that I'm critiquing the method that dissonance used to arrive at his conclusion.

  8. #48
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Well, then, why not believe in an endless host of things [Ne gone wild] just because we want to?
    Because we don't have equal reason to believe in all things.

    IOW, if you prefer: just because we can't prove something to someone else, doesn't mean it hasn't been proven to us.

  9. #49
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wandering View Post
    IOW, if you prefer: just because we can't prove something to someone else, doesn't mean it hasn't been proven to us.
    I have attempted to make this point on several occasions, but it doesn't seem to bear any weight.

  10. #50
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wandering View Post
    IOW, if you prefer: just because we can't prove something to someone else, doesn't mean it hasn't been proven to us.
    That seems likely, since we all have different standards that have to be met and have little to go on otherwise except experience.

    It just makes conversation and truth-sharing difficult. We might as well be from different planets sometimes.

    After all, the astrologist lays the same sort of claims, as inscrutable as these discussions of the soul, but I'm not going to give her credibility just because she claims "something has been proven to her" that has not been proven to me.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2013, 02:36 PM
  2. human ego is the source of paradox
    By foolish heart in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-03-2010, 07:36 AM
  3. What is the source of class distinction?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 11:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO