babyhead

I've been thinking about this shit waay too much lately: (sorry, I don't know how to use "spoilers")



"No one has successfully reduced mind to matter."

This argument insists that it is not correct to equate brain and mind. I agree, and make the point for one thing to be dependent on another just doesn't necessarily mean the one equals the other. I use the analogy of an engine. Mind is the functioning of the brain, just as "running" is the functioning of an organ. "Running" is not the engine, but what the engine does. Mind is not the brain, but what the brain does. It makes no more sense to say that mind somehow exists apart from a brain than to say that "running" somehow exists apart from an engine. Just as "running" is solely dependent on some degree of functioning of the engine, so the mind is solely dependent on some degree of functioning of the brain. Dead engine, no running. Dead brain, no mind. This seems to me, self-evident. Not once has anyone demonstrated that mind can exist apart from matter, therefore, it is illogical or unreasonable to believe that it can. As Professor McKown correctly told us, "Although one may lose one's mind while keeping one's head, one cannot be beheaded and retain one's mind."


I have heard the statement that "people believe what they choose to believe" from people of all beliefs. I don't believe that is true. For myself, I find it impossible. If anyone can explain to me how this is done, I would like to know. I am not an atheist because I chose to be. I am an atheist because a rational and logical examination of the available facts of the question, rather than uncritical emotional acceptance of the teachings of authority, leave me no choice. Are you an atheist merely because you choose to be? If so, could you not as easily choose to believe in Christianity or some other more popular belief, and thus spare yourself the inherent risks involved in being an atheist? I think it wise to remember that authorities, whether they be Holy Books, religions, governments, or even our own subjective emotional desires, can be very dangerous to all of us if left unchecked by reason. Falsehoods and superstition cannot withstand the scrutiny of reason. As Sagan put it,
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. ... when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us -- then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."