Is there such a thing as a Christian?

That is only because you are considering it within the current political/religious/cultural climate we find ourselves in at this time, rather than according to the meaning of the word itself.

 

This is what I mean by whose potency is diminished.
The difficulty you refer to has been demonstrated in this thread in a delightful way. I've come through my discussion with heeh2 unscathed. It requires time to get beyond defenses no matter what triggers them and in the mean time many salient ancillary prospects emerge.

 

PB:

Atmospheric pressure differs at different levels.

The word has come to also refer to religion, hence my general preference for the word trust.

Confusion is boring. Why have faith in context when one can trust in ones meaning? lol

 

exactly my point.
In discussions such as this it is vital to be able to consider the topic outside of any and all such pressures or personal bias in order to get an honest appraisal of the topic.
Something most that most are not able to do regarding discussions of religion.
My approach is to try to consider the underlying idea or philosophy devoid of any cultural connotations. Then piece by piece layer on such considerations.
That is what I have been trying to communicate to heeh2 from the start. But it would seem his personal/cultural bias is so entrenched and he has so much ego validation wrapped up in that bias, it precludes seeing the topic from a neutral perspective.

 

Because you keep digressing into trivial aspects of the things i'm explaining.

You draw obvious distinctions between mind and method that for some reason
you think i didn't realize already, and its really not a point.

Now you aren't even making sense. You say that faith is confidence and trust
which are both affirmative, and then call them both a suspension of judgement.

Explain how an affirmation can be a suspension of judgement, OR, faith as you
describe it violates its own proposition.

The last time i made this point you ignored it and said
"In the absence of knowing for certain, we find some measure of faith."

Your calling it faith rather than just uncertainty because you think you have
something to affirm.

but you don't.....because your propositions are unfounded.

To me, the mind reflects the workings of the brain, just like computations
reflect the workings of a computer. You can have your superfluous dualism
but it doesn't serve to describe why the brain responds to our mental life in
elaborate ways, which is an obvious shortcoming.

 

Your statement was flat out wrong, I don't call that a trivial aspect. You are not the only one with an explanation. If you want to be seriously considered you need to be more circumspect with your claims.

You are not demonstrating the understanding you claim to possess.

The suspended sentence. My propositions are based on empirical evidence.

It is like you string words together because you think they sound good.
To say that the mind is abstract is to describe it accurately. Because it is abstract we can be totally hoodwinked by our senses as in optical illusion.

So you feel that the brain responds to mental life?

 

I said "science does not provide answers, it recognizes them."

You said "Recognition is a cognitive function of the mind, not of science."

You are trying to compare a method of recognition to recognition itself when
they are the same entity (IE: same hair). Method is what your recognition consists of.

Meaning, the answer to an equation, consists of the recognition of the
problem.

Please be as clear as possible, i repeat.

Your proposition was that faith is the suspension of judgement. "But you don't"
was explaining that faith is not the suspension of judgement because
confidence and truth are affirmative.

By having faith, and having confidence and trust, you are claiming to have
something to affirm.

But you cannot affirm anything without judging because affirmation is a positive
judgement.

I think the brain produces mental life. That is to say that the mind is what the brain does.

If you want to separate the brain and the mind, you are going to have to
claim ignorance towards a correspondence between the two.

 

I don't understand the question.

 

Recognition is of the mind. Scientific method supplies data. Data is processed by the mind to fit into a pattern, this is recognition. It appears to me you are according entity status to the word science.

You must not have understood the answer.

Yes faith can be a little willingness to suspend judgment. I understand what you think. I provided the example of suspended sentence in the judicial system.
Another example: you know you are going to die but you have faith that today is not the day. You have no reason to believe this but you do.
Another example is when you are skeptical of an outcome but you go ahead anyway on the strength of some friends testimony. You would be willing to set aside a conviction for a time on the basis of a promise.
Another example is judgment as decision. You hold off on making a decision until all the facts are in and you do so because you have faith that the facts will tell the real story.

The suspension of judgment as an act of faith until the truth appears. It is not an open ended commitment, but a temporary expediency.

Ok, I was wondering because you said "the brain responds to our mental life",
which is the exact opposite of what you just said.
Single cell organisms do not have brains, yet they feed, reproduce, and react to stimuli. They display some quality of awareness.

 

thedope:

How can I wait?! My patience is no judge! It is a robber! My sentence is loving, it pronounces the innocence of the accused before there are words for it. There are no idle thoughts as you say, and the idlest goes its way upon a whisper!

The "truth" does not appear unless we make it do so.

Our apprehension is telling to the last. The facts are always in, and never stop coming! lol


There are no impartial verdicts!

 

There is silent witness. Neither yea not nay.

Creation is partial to who?

Perhaps I should as you would, sim-ply choose a different euphemism.

Anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so. Some learning you had undertaken needs to be suspended and appropriately amended.

 

Using reality as a synonym for truth, it is always apparent but may go unrecognized.

 

True forgiveness.

 

Our cells have nuclei but we have a brain also. Single cell nucleus is not brain.
What makes you think mind is not present in a single cell?

 

To me! I burn for completion, though it is believed this means death! : D

Past weeping for recognition wasted in silent witness.

 

You are seeking?

 

Yes.

I am so partial to creation I am likely to be overlooked. lol

Not so much anxiety as keen insight. The realist in me is a devilish layabout. The mind somehow wants more than to be wholly kind!

 

no...i think that recognition is the entity, but recognition functions through
a method. To make an example of this, i think its enough of a distinction to
realize that different people have different ways to discern what "truth" is.
Thats why we believe in different stuff in the first place right?

Some people accept argument from authority (which i still cannot understand)
and other people look to calculation, which fits just right with people like me
who cant understand anything else.

Both people are recognizing what they think is truth, but they cant both
be right. It is in the way they recognize what truth is that is its
method.

Saying recognition = recognition doesn't explain why people disagree about
what they recognize.

Death has causes.

And faith how you are using it here is not suspending judgement because you
are affirming that "today is not the day".

This is the error that faith is famous for.

I have plenty of reason to believe i will not die of HIV today. Mainly because
I don't carry the virus. If i did have HIV, i would have reason to believe I
might die of it, which can also be measured.

There are ways to discern what viruses and illnesses you carry, as well as
their prevalence in your body. This isn't the only exception to your scenario
either.

Thats not suspending judgement though, thats trusting in the integrity of the
testimony. An affirmation of the validity of someones word.

With all of your examples, there is reason to believe that there is an
explanation, because after all, something did happen. Its what
happened that is under evaluation.

I said that cause i thought you were trying to say that the mind was not of the brain.

 

No, not right. The method of recognition is the interpretation of sensory stimuli.
Sensory stimuli are interpreted against a world model that is developed from biological arrangement and experience. Although discernment and recognition are synonymous in many ways, discernment is most always a choice between many, a choice between exterior phenomena, whereas recognition does not depend on external comparisons but comparison to models in the mind. We believe different stuff because we are taught to believe different stuff.

It is always authority that you agree with, we always choose with a guide.
You are not making a meaningful distinction.

You are not making a meaningful distinction here. You do obey traffic signs if you drive. Ostensibly you do pay your taxes. The claim that you are not faithful is not thoroughly considered.

If someone says they look good in black and another says they look good in blue, which one is right?

No judgment does that

Alright then which cause are you dying of?

You cannot logically say most definitely, that today is not your day to die.

But no reason to expect that you will not die of some other cause.

And the exceptions to your scenario are many. You have no reason to believe you will not die this day of accident or "natural causes".

If we trust implicitly a persons word there is no reason for a suspended sentence. The suspended sentence becomes a way of encouraging compliance, if the subject does not comply then the sentence is carried out.
A sentence is a judgment.

Exactly as I said, faith has reason to exist.

If you thought I was saying the mind is not of the brain why did you say, "the brain responds to the mind". It looks like simply the failure to consider adequately what you claimed, that you misspoke. But now that you try to defend this statement as purposeful reaction to something I said, you are doubly mistaken.

 

Again, this is a trivial distinction when i said the exact same thing with
different words.

You are saying recognition and judgement, and im saying recognition and
method. that they are different things is irrelevant in that one relies on the
other.

your not concentrating on the functions of my argument.

The point i was making was the difference between understanding something
and accepting it without understanding it.

To use your own example: You wouldn't stop at a stop sign if you didn't
understand what a stop sign was.

I stop at stop signs because i understand what a stop sign is.

Objectivity is not a matter of taste.

You judge what you recognize....

method of recognition....
like i said above, potato patato.

There are ways to discover this. And if the foresight is incorrect, we can go
back and understand why the prediction was incorrect.

What other cause would you have me consider? You are acknowledging that
my death WILL have a cause, so why ignore the fact that the preceding
events of my death would be measurable

But witnesses are regarded because they are seen to hold a measure of validity, correct?

No, it doesn't, you used the words out of context.

If it had reason to exist it would be called knowledge.

The error of faith is that it is a positive affirmation based on nothing.

Because its an example of dualistic shortcoming.

And why are you leaving out half of it. Particularly the half that directly contradicts the idea
that i think the mind is not of the brain. And all the statements prior?

" i thought you were trying to say that the mind was not of the brain."

Hence "you can have your superfluous dualism."

Your dwelling on your own misunderstanding.