TnT, the beliefs of your psych patient seem quite sane to me. Why are the courts involved? Did he commit crimes?
- Join Date
- Jul 2001
- Location
- San Jose CA
- Posts
- 22,504
TnT, the beliefs of your psych patient seem quite sane to me. Why are the courts involved? Did he commit crimes?
Quite sane? Well, certainly not, according to standard societal norms. He's spent several years in different psych facilities in other states, and this is his second trip to the big house here in NM.Originally Posted by Eric the Green
I'm not sure that believing that the "aliens" need our blood to survive, aligns with rational thought.
My experience with visiting with our "diagnosed schizophrenics" suggests that much of their thought process can be connected to "reality," but there's enough off-track to make them a hazard to themselves and to society.
You don't have to commit a crime to be committed. You just have to be committed.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
But you do not say exactly what makes him insane. The beliefs of his that you stated are not insane, even if believing that aliens need our blood to survive is an exotic point of view.
Which may be quite unfair, unless they are a danger to themselves or others. Putting people away for believing in ETs with nefarious purposes is just persecution.My experience with visiting with our "diagnosed schizophrenics" suggests that much of their thought process can be connected to "reality," but there's enough off-track to make them a hazard to themselves and to society.
You don't have to commit a crime to be committed. You just have to be committed.
It turns out that I don't have to say what "exactly" makes him insane. That's up to medical professionals WAY above my pay grade. And the judges in the District Courts, in concert with the psychiatrists.
Here's my understanding of these situations. There is a general assumption that when people believe fervently in models of the world which deviate markedly from most of polite society, they risk stepping over the line into something called "insanity." The harder they cling to these so-called delusions, and the more at variance these delusions are, the more they are vulnerable to predation and to harming either themselves or others.
And of course, the definition of "insanity" isn't absolute. It's a continuum.
The whole point of my original post was how interesting someone's mental process can be, and how creative his ideas, even when the person has been adjudicated. If it seemed that I was making fun of him, please forgive me and accept my most humble apologies, because I would not for one second do that. It is NOT his fault that he carries this dreadful burden. In fact, it seems like our loss as a society that we can't find a use for his splendid imagination, and perhaps at the same time give him some satisfaction and a feeling of usefulness.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
Not your fault, and if you don't know his condition, you don't know why he was so judged. I certainly object to any such "general assumption." "Polite society" itself tends to be as insane as anyone whom they so adjudicate. But it all depends on the circumstances. Mental health facilities should be available and funded by health insurance, and those who make threats should be watched. And people who are actually mentally ill should not be allowed to buy guns. Still, being imprisoned against your will for your beliefs would be unfair.
Many peoples' mental processes can be interesting and creative. But to have ideas at variance with conventional opinion today, is likely to be more sane than less sane than the "normal" person. Because conventional opinion today is mostly delusional.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-20-2015 at 09:27 PM.
A 4T is more secular; the prevailing paradigm is increasingly becoming secular atheism among the people as well as among academics. Is it a good trend? From my point of view, I'm not so sure. Most of the leakage from religion so far is from Catholics and Protestants, whereas where the leakage NEEDS to come from is evangelicals. Here's the latest Pew Report:
Christianity Declines Sharply in US, Agnostics Growing: Pew
Tuesday, 12 May 2015 07:43 AM
By Melanie Batley
Christianity is in sharp decline in America, according to new research from the Pew Research Center, making for a significantly less Christian country than that of just seven years ago.
The number of Christians dropped by almost 8 percentage points in seven years to 71 percent, and the trend holds across race, gender, education, and geographic dimensions, though Christianity still dominates American religious identity at 70 percent, USA Today said.
"It's remarkably widespread," Alan Cooperman, director of religion research for the Pew Research Center, said, according to The Washington Post. "The country is becoming less religious as a whole, and it's happening across the board."
The research also found that the percentage of people not affiliated with a religion has increased from 16 percent to about 23 percent over that period.
A number of key trends have emerged from the research, the Post said.
For one, millennials have become less affiliated with religion as they have aged over the last decade. In 2007, 25 percent did not affiliate with a religion. In the current survey, it's 34 percent.
"Some have asked, 'Might they become more religiously affiliated as they get older?' There's nothing in this data to suggest that's what's happening," said Greg Smith, associate director of research at the Pew Research Center, according to the Post.
A second trend indicates that there are more religiously unaffiliated Americans than Catholics or mainline Protestants. The unaffiliated amount to 25 percent, compared to 21 percent for Catholics and 15 percent for Protestants.
Specifically, the numbers of Catholics and Protestants have both shrunk between 3 and 5 percentage points since 2007, while the evangelical share of the population is down by 1 point since that time.
"That's a striking and important note," Smith told the Post.
Another trend indicates that those who are unaffiliated are becoming more secular.
The "nones," or religiously unaffiliated, include atheists, agnostics and those who say they believe in "nothing in particular." Of those who are unaffiliated, 31 percent say they are atheists or agnostics, an increase of 6 points since 2007.
"What we're seeing now is that the share of people who say religion is important to them is declining," Smith told the Post. "The religiously unaffiliated are not just growing, but as they grow, they are becoming more secular."
The trend also holds for older generations as the percentage of baby boomers who identified as "none" increased from 14 percent in 2007 to 17 percent in the current survey.
"More people know the facts, and more people realize they are not alone," David Silverman, president of American Atheists, told USA Today. "It's now impossible for an atheist to think he is alone in this world. They are automatically empowered."
"There's a continuing religious disaffiliation among older cohorts. That is really striking," Smith told the Post. "I continue to be struck by the pace at which the unaffiliated are growing."
The poll also found that intermarriage has increased with each generation, with 39 percent in a religiously mixed marriage compared to 19 percent among those who got married before 1960, USA Today reported.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chr...#ixzz3ZyMJz6cC
Last edited by Eric the Green; 05-12-2015 at 08:17 PM.
A very good challenge to the materialists and atheists on here (that applies to most of you, I think):
https://youtu.be/2j3VU1T8ALU?t=24m50s
You guys who knock Spirit and God and all that stuff, you are not speaking the truth, you are just fizzing!
I especially liked this one comment:
"It seems to me that William Craig's arguments in this and every other debate in which he partakes are so circular that one day he is going to disappear up his own ass."
This was in regard to some circular reasoning, purporting to demonstrate the existence of god.
Btw, I don't think I'm an atheist, in that one has to define what one does not believe in, which is another exercise in trying to look up one's own nose.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
Hitchens usually wins the prize for sarcastic humor; I always enjoy watching him. He'll be fun to follow when I get to the great debate in the sky. He'll be there, in heaven; denying where he is as always.
Plop Plop fizz fizz. Fizz fizz fizz away, these atheists. Just some atoms and molecules bouncing each other around. So pathetic that their arguments just fizzle.Btw, I don't think I'm an atheist, in that one has to define what one does not believe in, which is another exercise in trying to look up one's own nose.
I've often wondered why atheist equates to belief in the nonexistence of a deity. Shouldn't that be antitheist? Atheist, like amoral and asexual, should indicate the absence of the trait.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
The thing is, atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris et al, think they can get around Douglas Wilson's point (and my point too, frequently), that there's no in between on this. Either you (each person) is a "supernatural" (unexplanable by today's empirical science), spiritual being, mysterious and creative, OR you are a mechanically-driven robot with no consciousness or life whatever; your thoughts and actions explained as the effect of "material" causes. You are one, or the other. Which is it, Tim? Which are you?
And if you concede the former, unlike what Wilson and company might say, it does not necessarily support the existence of a separate, supernatural dictator papa ruling over us from heaven that Hitchens objects to. On THAT point, there IS a range of options! Wilson's excellent point does not support the traditional Christian religion; it just puts you in the dilemna of making that choice between "fizzing," and real living.
And unlike what both sides of this debate say, and in agreement with Deepak Chopra, the cosmic mind IS your mind. We DO know the mind of God, at a deep level. As Jesus said, I and the Father are one. It wasn't just Jesus himself, whom he meant. It's all of us.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 06-02-2015 at 02:03 PM.
Ah, what a luxury!! To have your certainty about everything!
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
Eric, I just don't get it. How do you construct these wild, undefined, ephemeral statements? (In this case a question that is probably a false dichotomy.)
Even the false dichotomy part is difficult to assemble, because neither of the "choices" is necessarly true or sensible. And they're certainly not mutually exclusive. And the range of possibilities has not even begun to be described.
The thing that comforts me in the midst of these conversations is that "belief systems" are simply products of an individual's imagination, sometimes resting on an amount of data/information, and sometimes not. But in most cases, it's just something that rattles around in one's mind. Doesn't really do any harm until the person begins to inflict his/her "beliefs" on others or the real world.
And it's fun to listen to ideas that can be pretty cool, even if they have to be considered odd, implausible, or impossible. My paranoid schizophrenic patient is a good example of this.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
If you admit there is more than materialist "fizzing" going on, how do you describe or explain this?
I think it is disingenuous for someone like Hitchens (or you or others here) to say that he and other humans or animals are "programmed" to care about things and nurture life, etc. It is simply impossible. If he is "programmed," then it is simply a mechanical or automatic process, with no explanation at all really. There is simply no way to call it "caring." You can't weasal out of that problem, so you just keep ignoring it and say you don't get my ephemeral statements, when the fact is that it's as plain as anything can be.
And Tim, for goodness sakes, I don't have to have "certainty about everything," to recognize even the most obvious of facts.
Originally Posted by Kinser79
... One either thinks that Jesus Christ was crucified for the remission of sins, died, was buried, and resurrected on the third day and now sits at the right hand of YHWH, or one does not. ...
Thought I might move this discussion to a more appropriate venue.
One might argue that the Apostle's Creed is a definition of "Christianity," one certainly held by many more "Christian" sects than just the Church of Kinser.
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Clearly, your definition leaves out a LOT of the stuff in this Creed, which one might argue makes your definition woefully deficient. So, already with almost no effort I've driven another possibility into your false dichotomy.
On the other hand, one might argue that simply paying lip service, however well meant, to your defintion of "Christianity" is simply inadequate to claim the Christian faith. One might argue that the Jesus Message, as so eloquently laid out in the Sermon on the Mount is what defines the Christian.
That is, in order to be a Christian, one must do more than simply "believe," whatever that means, in an arcane and superstitious-appearing doctrine, and instead at least TRY to adhere to the Jesus Message. Otherwise, as it is said, "faith without works is dead."
There. Two substantial arguments that fall between your two stakes in the ground, between which you say there is no space.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...743#post533743
... One either thinks that Jesus Christ was crucified for the remission of sins, died, was buried, and resurrected on the third day and now sits at the right hand of YHWH, or one does not. ...
Thought I might move this discussion to a more appropriate venue.
One might argue that the Apostle's Creed is a definition of "Christianity," one certainly held by many more "Christian" sects than just the Church of Kinser.
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Clearly, your definition leaves out a LOT of the stuff in this Creed, which one might argue makes your definition woefully deficient. So, already with almost no effort I've driven another possibility into your false dichotomy.
On the other hand, one might argue that simply paying lip service, however well meant, to your defintion of "Christianity" is simply inadequate to claim the Christian faith. One might argue that the Jesus Message, as so eloquently laid out in the Sermon on the Mount is what defines the Christian.
That is, in order to be a Christian, one must do more than simply "believe," whatever that means, in an arcane and superstitious-appearing doctrine, and instead at least TRY to adhere to the Jesus Message. Otherwise, as it is said, "faith without works is dead."
There. Two substantial arguments that fall between your two stakes in the ground, between which you say there is no space.
My reply is in the other thread. I don't feel like copypasta tonight so I linked it.
Last edited by Kinser79; 09-08-2015 at 12:23 AM. Reason: links
In regard to Eric's dichotomy presented above, he's talking about hard-problem consciousness, which definitely does present a problem for mechanistic materialism. Phenomenological consciousness is unobservable and therefore beyond the scope of scientific method. Psychic materialism -- the idea that first-person subjective awareness arises in some cause-effect fashion from some discrete material process, most commonly something in the brain, not only has no evidence behind it but also cannot even be articulated coherently.
However, having said that, we can't then say "if not this, then that" about any specific idea.
There's at least one other possibility, which is that "you" are an illusion. By the way, it's not your thoughts and actions that can't be explained as the effect of material causes, but your subjective awareness of them (and of everything else). If we forget about consciousness, thought and action fit the materialist paradigm just fine.
But of course philosophically we shouldn't forget about consciousness, and if we can't explain that through material mechanism (which we can't), then the question remains otherwise open. My own view is that consciousness is all cosmic and universal. There is only one Self, and that is the universe, which experiences reality simultaneously through all viewpoints. But while consciousness is universal, memory isn't. Individual memories create the illusion of individual consciousness. In terms of consciousness, there is no "you" to explain.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
OOOOH, another Panpsychist! There are dozens of us! DOZENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
I find it absolutely remarkable that it appears that our species and perhaps others have evolved from the beginnings of our universe, and that we now seem to have the ability to look back at the universe and contemplate IT. Pretty cool.
So in that sense, I suppose there is only one consciousness, so to speak, if one considers our own awareness as something that is part and parcel of the universe anyway. But ours does seem to be more concentrated. We seem to be able to talk back and forth to each other about such things.
There doesn't seem to be much reliable evidence that you and I are a homogenous mush, all together in this creation. It seems that we are separate, and pretty much isolated on our physical (material) body which in turn suggests that our awareness centers somehow on our physical body.
Granted, we don't know much yet about our "minds." How they come to pass, what builds them up, how they come to possess their remarkable properties.
Before I buy into woo-woo concepts, I guess I'd like to see more evidence that our minds really aren't centered on and function in, our physical bodies.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
The evidence is building; I posted some of it and links to other sources on this thread a while back.
For the mystic tho, direct experience is enough. (s)he simply wakes up and realizes (s)he is more than the body.
Personally I like the idea of an inter-dependence of the Individual and the One. Both exist thoroughly. It seems to me that, in a sense, this is the basis of generations and turnings theory. It revolves around the cycle between society as centered on the individual, and as centered on the collective. The collective isn't the same as the homogenous mush of universal consciousness, but it's a similar idea. In the 4T, institutions are revived and by the 1T the individual is buried in conformity to the group. In the Awakening the individual is revived and by the 3T the group has been reduced to individuals.
Let's be clear on what I meant above. The individual definitely exists. Individual consciousness, however, is an illusion.
Individual memories, individual personality, individual thought processes, all that is real, and the universe experiences all of that happening subjectively. (Of course, this has implications for religious ideas of post-mortem survival. Like, they're all crap. Consciousness goes on, but individual consciousness doesn't even exist in the present, let alone after death.)
Yeah, but what more? I am the universe; I am all that is, and that's definitely more than a single body. But in the sense that I even exist as an individual, no, there's nothing more to me than my body. Except even that's an illusion, since the distinction between this body and the universe it interacts with is arbitrary.
Psychic materialism is nonsense, but materialism, understood with the brain instead of the guts, is true. There is nothing -- no thing -- that isn't material. Consciousness isn't a thing; it's everything. And that which is everything is nothing in particular, and by "thing" we always mean something in particular. So every thing is material.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
Mind is one thing. Consciousness is another. Mind encompasses such objective phenomena as our ability to talk about such things (or about anything), or to respond intelligently to stimuli, or to reason, remember, process sensory information, etc. Consciousness refers to the fact that these things are experienced in the first person. It does not refer to the mechanics of doing any of them.
Are you familiar with the concept of the philosophical zombie? That articulates the unique nature of consciousness well, and the distinction between consciousness and mental processes. Here's an article on the subject: http://consc.net/zombies.html.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/
The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
There are no things. There is no matter.
Sincerely, Brian, our world views are different. You know I'm not going to convince you of mine, nor are you going to convince me of yours. I am glad you are here to express your views, and I too welcome you back. I hope your books are doing well. I am off this weekend to "Sunday School" (Community of Infinite Spirit in San Jose) to produce my annual event:
http://philosopherswheel.com/haf.htm
It's exhausting work, but people love the show, which I've been doing since the late Awakening, from which its inspiration comes (naturally). Best wishes.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 09-25-2015 at 11:01 AM.
Reading all of this.......who needs alcohol! All brain scrambling gibberish to me! Must be a boomer thing. Sometimes I think my parents generation are like a different species!
1984 Civic
ISFJ
Introvert(69%) Sensing(6%) Feeling(19%) Judging(22%)
