Believing Sacred Stories:
What does “belief” mean, as related to mind v. brain?
Well, “physical” representations are held to be accessible by my brain, such representations being sometimes correlated with information organized and stored about my present and previous sequences of associational experiences. To the extent information stored in my brain is fairly accurate in how it correlates with the way the world presents its promises and threats, my brain may become more likely to choose such mental states as are conducive to its emotionally conditioned interests. In that respect, “belief” may refer to abstract weighing of information about how previous capacities may or should relate to present challenges.
One whose mind has associated with conditioning for believing consciousness can phase and effect changes in material via a feedback loop may more likely be fit to inhabit and develop the very sorts of organizations among patterns of matter that will better leverage such feedback effect into reality.
A consciousness that believes its capacity to phase changes in its mind states may in fact show the reasonableness of modeling matter as if matter were merely derivative of consciousness as it images among mere placeholders and symbols of math.
Taking God as Holism, and each Perspective of God as associating with Holography for expressing each of us, various sacred texts may come to seem more reasonable, especially for availing contextual figures of speech for conditioning and facilitating communications regarding our interactive moral intentions.
Pound for pound, when it comes to winning Nobel prizes in science, whose population is mightier than Israel’s? Whose populations are among the weakest? Why is it that one society riven with traditions produces the best scientific minds, while other societies riven with traditions produce hardly any? In one, its members feel free to talk to God; in others, members feel hidebound so as not to question at all what their leaders interpret as the commands of God. In between, we find societies fomenting traditions for banning or ridiculing questions about God. Maybe that can tell us something about God, as well as tradition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Progressives do not even attempt to consider the science behind their beliefs, they don't attempt to study their proposals to determine what would be the expected outcomes based on the laws of physics."
Indeed. Progressives do not much care for God, humanity, or business. They don't much like science either, except the "consensus based science" of close minded fiat, i.e., the "science" that says: Marxism good, Capitalism bad; Consciousness entirely secondary to Materialism; America bad because of Whitey; Globe warming unless business stopped; collectivism good, individual freedom bad; collectively raised children good, families bad.
The only empirical facts Progressives cherry pick are those that fit their close minded models. These progressive people are really purple haze zombies, living through their addictions to dope, sex, and collective induced mindlessness. They get really upset when you don't want to be a zombie too. Raise the curtain; there is not much science to these people.
I suspect what is going on is this: They deeply resent having been expelled from the womb. The amazing thing is, we have surrendered our governance to these people. I would like to see more studies to investigate such suspicion. Pity is, I doubt there is much funding to be had from the collectivist-academic stranglehold.
However, there is hope that conservatives will save reason for application to broader models. Look to fact laden writings of Horowitz, Sowell, etc.
Another word we’re killing is “empathy.” In part, “empathy” is being killed by killing old shared values, parables, and sacred stories and replacing them with new memes (Marxism).
Are you empathetic enough? That, apparently, is Obama’s first test for whomever he may nominate for the Supremes. (Or, more crassly, how deep are you willing to go, when you KMA?)
Beware of Lib’s bearing words of empathy. How infrequently do you come across a Lib in whom can be intuited character for standing for anything higher than a life of personal pleasure? For Libs I know, empathy consists in capacity for projecting mortal weaknesses and fetishes so as to expect reciprocation from others. Life is a pleasure cruise, in which others ought not obstruct one’s view of the scenery. What Libs tend to deem as signs of “empathy,” I view as the enabling and empowering of corruption.
Were one truly empathetic in respect of one’s existential participation, one would intuit and sense a need to be empathetic in respect of a higher Source (Great Commandment?), or a fundamentally common purpose. Drilling deeper, I would say such purpose should be to work to enhance civilizations of meaningful interaction. But this would entail more than a pleasure cruise. It would entail concern for how to sustain a decent civilization. To my lights, being concerned in the core of one’s character only for bossing others to prettify the environment of one’s scenery during one’s pleasure cruise is not empathy, but corruption, i.e., evil.
Yet, I fear false “pleasure cruise empathy” is Obama’s test for how he will fill seats on the Supreme Court.
Were Obama concerned with true empathy, he would be concerned with exemplifying and preserving human freedom, dignity, personal responsibility, initiative, and instilling respect for common decency and values, more so than “gimme my entitlement to personal pleasure.” But, in what church has he learned any such values?
Social Conservatives are not at war with Progressives; rather, we are engaged in a struggle to preserve souls from moral zombie-hood. Those beyond our means for saving may have to be cut loose. Or, we may have to go into the wilderness awhile.
Or consent to "reeducation" in the figures of neo-speak of False Utopians (i.e., Marxists).
Bubblehead said "The idea that a majority of Americans will not vote for conservatives is a myth created by the party leadership to distract from their inability to lead."
Well, it is a myth. But I am not sure it was birthed for the reason you suggest. It is at least equally likely the myth was created because Rinos are united with Dinos in "gimme" corruption. I doubt Tancredo was hurt by his border stance. Rather, I suspect he was hurt because he lacked money and organization to counter how he was defined. The political machines for both Rinos and Dinos are "Progressives," and both benefit enormously from erasing American borders.
BTW: When Progressives want to erase our borders, what is the point of tiptoeing with polite language? Why must we be p.c. and address them as "progressives," rather than as the traiters that they are? When did erasing national boundaries become non-traitorous? I'm not saying we need to shout "traitor." But what is wrong with simply using a correct descriptor, calmly? For example, if Napolitano continues to undermine enforcement of the border, should not someone ask her, "Ma'am, can you tell us for how long you have been trying to undermine American borders?"
If Americans voted on political propositions, rather than on representatives, I suspect we would have results far different from what are presented to us out of the efforts of weasels united from both ends of our political spectrum. I suspect, among ordinary Dems, Repubs, and Americans, closer to 60 % or more lean conservative.
But, as conservatives, we are simply being finessed by weasels (and sometimes by their trolls on conservative blogs). This is because, as Larry suggested in how he listed the factors, money (greed) counts for more than the number of voters. And this is why I wish (vainly?) for a progressive consumption tax, with political expenditures counting as consumption. And this is why Coulter wishes (vainly?) that conservatives could have their own version of Soros.
Maybe we could meet face to face on July 4, and, instead of bringing tea bags, bring (figurative?) tar, feathers, and pitchforks. And maybe some Scarlet W's --- to stick during handshakes onto any journalist who acts like a whore.
Post a Comment