Food for thought:
"Here is proof of the supernatural.
I can prove you have a brain. I can see, and test your brain. Grey matter is science.
I cannot prove you have a mind. I can't see it, and I can only test the interpretation according to your testimony.
Case in point:
Chemicals and electrical signals that arrange an unseen phenomenon into something faster than the worlds largest super-computer (IS) supernatural.
su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." ~ Evidence Based Faith

You mean like when the telegraph was invented the first message sent was "what hath God wrought"?

Ironically, that was the same year that Horny Joe got himself killed.

God's ways are mysterious indeed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2017 12:28PM by Shummy.

Umm, something like that. ;-)

No, brain activity can be measured. We even know what parts of the brain are responsible for different thoughts, etc. That is the mind (brain) at work.

My mind disagrees with your brain. :)

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We even know
> what parts of the brain are responsible for
> different thoughts, etc.

We don't know enough to use the word "responsible", as in this part of the brain 'lights up' when those particular thoughts are expressed, therefore that part of the brain 'makes' those particular thoughts. We don't know enough to turn these kinds of correlations into causation.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1033507/pg1



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 04:22AM by steve benson.

Agreed. The evidence suggest there is nothing that is beyond the " understanding or the laws of nature." We may not understand how it all works, but there is no evidence that the mind goes beyond our understanding of the laws of nature.

Also, the definition used in the OP "'(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.' ~ Evidence Based Faith" talks about an event being "attributed" to something. Attributions do not amount to proof of anything.

Just like a keyboard. I type the commands I to the keyboard and the computer does what I want it to (hopefully). I can even point out the location on the keyboard for specific commands. However, it still needs me. The brain is like a very fancy keyboard in that respect.

Brain surgeons know which part of the brain relates to short term or long term memories. They know which part relates to artistic ability and which part is related to religious experience. They know if they have to cut out a tumor in a certain part of the brain, they will impair dexterity or certain of the five senses.

They can map the brain and have the patient tell them what is being stimulated when they touch different areas.

You likely already knew all of this, but I still like to comment as I find it so interesting.

Once at a brain tumor conference, I was having trouble seeing a page someone was pointing out to me. I said, I'm having trouble reading that." The person said, "Oh, I'm sorry. Many people here have had that part of their brain damaged. I hope you can regain your reading."

I felt badly for misstating what I wanted to say. The person was so nice that I didn't explain that my reading ability was undamaged.

A lot of what you are saying is generally true, but relies on a premise, that the brain is largely fixed ('hardwired') once it reaches adulthood, is turning out to be wrong.

Brain plasticity is an interesting discovery, especially the miracle-like examples of the phenomena.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/06/02/kavli-prize-brain-neuroscience/

Snippet:

"Before their pioneering discoveries, the century-old conventional wisdom in neuroscience held that the adult brain is essentially fixed in structure and function. Regions that moved the right pinky or the left leg would always do that and nothing else; the number and strength of connections between different regions, which determine things like depression, were long thought immutable.

"That dogma was so strong that when Merzenich’s experiments in monkeys showed that the animals’ experiences could change their “brain maps” — which regions moved or received the sense of touch from which parts of the body — experts didn’t believe him."


All that aside, what is the relationship between the brain and the mind is a question completely unknown at this moment. Some simply bypass the question altogether and pretend that 'mind' doesn't exist.

The study clearly indicates to me that the new area of use is still mappabble. With study, the brain of any individual can have the brain activity mapped.

As far as "All that aside, what is the relationship between the brain and the mind is a question completely unknown at this moment" not everyone agrees with your assessment.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-brain-and-consciousness/201101/mind-brain-and-consciousness

Bang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The study clearly indicates to me that the new
> area of use is still mappabble. With study, the
> brain of any individual can have the brain
> activity mapped.

The point is that that which gets "mapped" can change very dramatically; therefore, in those situations, the "maps" must be "remapped". And that "map" can be in turn needing to be "remapped." Etc.

Since maps rely on fixed coordinates, the metaphor "map" is no longer useful.




> As far as "All that aside, what is the
> relationship between the brain and the mind is a
> question completely unknown at this moment" not
> everyone agrees with your assessment.
>
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-brain-an
> d-consciousness/201101/mind-brain-and-consciousnes
> s

Right, not everyone agrees. However, this author's "contentions" are merely that. Those four paragraphs aren't very useful. He pretends to solve the problem by pretending there's no such thing as "mind".

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since maps rely on fixed coordinates, the metaphor
> "map" is no longer useful.

Not the case.
The "map" of the night sky as visible from earth we use isn't based on fixed coordinates. Because the earth isn't fixed. Neither is the solar system we're part of. Neither is our galaxy. Those relative coordinates need to be updated constantly with changing information -- yet the "map" is still a "map," and is very useful. Lots of very useful maps use relative coordinates, not fixed.

> He pretends
> to solve the problem by pretending there's no such
> thing as "mind".

There might not be. The word itself might simply be one we humans made up to describe what we notice/observe from the workings of a brain.

Admittedly he can't "prove" that. It is, however, a reasonable hypothesis to test. :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Not the case.
> The "map" of the night sky as visible from earth
> we use isn't based on fixed coordinates. Because
> the earth isn't fixed. Neither is the solar
> system we're part of. Neither is our galaxy.
> Those relative coordinates need to be updated
> constantly with changing information -- yet the
> "map" is still a "map," and is very useful. Lots
> of very useful maps use relative coordinates, not
> fixed.
>

Agreed, even the surface of the earth is mapped and those maps are useful even though the face of the earth is constantly changing. Plate tectonics means that the entire surface of the earth is changing.

Is a map of the city useless because new streets are constantly being added through growth? I certainly do not think so.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Human Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Since maps rely on fixed coordinates, the
> metaphor
> > "map" is no longer useful.
>
> Not the case.
> The "map" of the night sky as visible from earth
> we use isn't based on fixed coordinates. Because
> the earth isn't fixed. Neither is the solar
> system we're part of. Neither is our galaxy.
> Those relative coordinates need to be updated
> constantly with changing information -- yet the
> "map" is still a "map," and is very useful. Lots
> of very useful maps use relative coordinates, not
> fixed.

Okay, fair enough. I was thinking of London is fixed, the highway I take to work is fixed, etc. Full steam ahead for the metaphor "maps", if it so pleases.

But the main point isn't negated. Brain plasticity indicates a brain that is far more versatile, malleable, and unfixed than scientists previously thought. The "maps" we drew and are drawing today aren't mapping fixed things like London is a fixed place. The "maps" are provisional. Previously brain "map" was used in the way we use maps to indicate London, the highway, etc. (And yes, my highway can disappear and even London can disappear, making it necessary to redraw the maps. Point taken. I don't think your point gets us anywhere, though.)




> There might not be. The word itself might simply
> be one we humans made up to describe what we
> notice/observe from the workings of a brain.
>
> Admittedly he can't "prove" that. It is, however,
> a reasonable hypothesis to test. :)

I always find it startlingly weird when people use their mind to assert that they haven't a mind. People might say, "I use my brain, dummy," but that "I" that uses the brain has mind enough to be aware of themselves as an "I" that may choose to "use their brain". It's weird when people say, in effect, that their mind doesn't exist but their body does. They only know they have a body because they have a mind to perceive it. (I get that this is simply reversed, that we only have what's called a mind because the body made it.)

Okay: the brain made up a word to describe itself as something other than a brain. "Brain" and "mind" are the same thing, or two aspects of the same coin. Fine, let's assume it as an hypothesis. Care to point out how such an hypothesis can be tested?

The point does not stand. You are still only talking about brain function to claim that the mind and the brain are separate and not showing that this means that they are separate.

You state "Brain plasticity indicates a brain that is far more versatile, malleable, and unfixed than scientists previously thought" So what? It is all still a function of the brain. The idea that the brain is more malleable, etc. only allows for an environment where it is more likely that the brain and the mind are the same.

The idea that the *Brain* is more malleable, etc. does no address the "mind" being different in any way.

Nice try at a red hearing though.

Not trying for any herring, red or otherwise.

Seems we are discussing two separate things:

1. The usefulness of the metaphor "map" vis-a-vis new discoveries of brain plasticity

2. Your link to four paragraphs in a pop-psych magazine

I admitted ifi-'s point about maps, although it doesn't get us anywhere. And your link doesn't go anywhere near demonstrating that the relationship between brain and mind is known.

Um, I was discussing the original topic of the thread.

"Food for thought: Proof of the Supernatural" Which used a discussion of the brain to try to prove the supernatural.

IF that is not what you were discussing, then why did you hijack the thread?

As far as I can tell, you are now saying that your post has nothing to do with the tread topic.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bang Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The study clearly indicates to me that the new
> > area of use is still mappabble. With study, the
> > brain of any individual can have the brain
> > activity mapped.
>
> The point is that that which gets "mapped" can
> change very dramatically; therefore, in those
> situations, the "maps" must be "remapped". And
> that "map" can be in turn needing to be
> "remapped." Etc.
>
> Since maps rely on fixed coordinates, the metaphor
> "map" is no longer useful.
>
>

Funny the neurologists that study he brain use brain mapping all the time.

An MRI can be use to assess the potential extent of injury.

Sorry, but the evidence contradicts your "contentions".

>
>
> > As far as "All that aside, what is the
> > relationship between the brain and the mind is
> a
> > question completely unknown at this moment" not
> > everyone agrees with your assessment.
> >
> >
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-brain-an
>
> >
> d-consciousness/201101/mind-brain-and-consciousnes
>
> > s
>
> Right, not everyone agrees. However, this
> author's "contentions" are merely that. Those
> four paragraphs aren't very useful. He pretends
> to solve the problem by pretending there's no such
> thing as "mind".

Well, considering the major errors in your "contentions" noted above and by another, I believe I would accept the "contentions" of a neurologist (someone that likely uses brain mapping on a regular bases) over your "contentions"

Somewhere I read the Mormongod does not work outside the realm of physics, so by definition he's *not* supernatural.

BTW, Supernatural is a great show, and I wish had their black '67 Impala...

We know enough about the brain to know that when damaged, the personality (mind) can completely change too.

By that reasoning music is supernatural.

As food for thought, 'tis a gummy bear.

"Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." .... yet more bullshit.

The correct definition would be ... "Attributed to some force beyond the laws of nature."

. . . Russian cosmonauts is also proof of a supernatural "God."


Just ask Amyjo. She read it in a supernatural supermarket tabloid and then testified to its super-dooper truth here on RfM.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 02:24AM by steve benson.

I did not read it in a supermarket tabloid, which makes you a liar.

It was written in the cosmonauts own words and published in Guideposts - a magazine for spirituality, which according to your winged monkeys doesn't exist.

In your past spaced-out commentary on 80-ft.-tall winged space-alien angels allegedly hovering next to a disabled Soviet spacecraft, you actually cite this tabloid kissin' cousin as your source:

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2012/04/space-angels-aliens-or-sign-of-the-apocalypse/ (Please note how you specificallv reference this source in your highlighted RFM post below ***).


The "Mysterious Universe" website to which you recklessly refer readers engages in its share of P.T. Barnum-style "tabloid journalism," meaning it peddles overblown, sensationalized stories that appeal to its large and gullible audience. To be sure, it bills itself as "bring[ing] you the latest news and podcasts covering the strange, extraordinary, weird, wonderful and everything in between . . . to a huge following with millions of downloads from around the world."

Step right up, suckers:

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/category/podcasts/


Enjoy being reminded of that inconvenient reality, as well as being reminded of factual evidence debunking not only your giant-space-alien-angel tall tale, but other space-junk whoppers of yours that similarly have blown up on your loony launch pad, as demonstrated in the same RfM thread:

*** http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1556038,1556038#msg-1556038


Liar, liar, pants on fire, indeed. :-)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1cppAYLn0v8#



Edited 23 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 06:23AM by steve benson.

I see you have a problem with space aliens. I have to admit I have never met one, only the more terrestrial variety, but I am sure they would not be appreciative of your skepticism. So let us oft speak kind words to each other...

-The wind-up-missionary version:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kX2U8nSQ7Vw#


-The wandering-aimlessly-out-on-the-salt-flats version:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fc4aptFGpRg#


-The sci-fi-from-On-High-flyby version:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Py3IaffVtQ4


-The what-the-walking-dead-in-the-afterlife-look-like version:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WwYm_mKQ3Gs#
-----


-And now, forget all of that "food-for-thought" silly, saccharine "Proof-of-the-Supernatural" nonsense.

Here's the best hieway-to-Kolob-hell version:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l482T0yNkeo#



Edited 17 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 06:25AM by steve benson.

I will have to wait for a reliable VPN connection to view anything on YouTube, one of the fun parts of living in this Republic of the People. It's funny that nobody here in China ever talks about UFOs, ghosts, or anything else supernatural.

80 proof, 100 proof. Spirits.

Nope.

"We don't know" does not equal "supernatural causes." At least not to rational people.

https://hashtagapologetics.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/screen-shot-2013-10-12-at-5-47-59-pm.png



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 04:34AM by steve benson.

The first source I read the story of the cosmonauts in was a Guideposts publication in 1994, titled, "Angels in the Battlefield." It has been republished many times since, and can be easily found on the Internet through numerous sources.

Steve OCD knows this. It wasn't a tabloid. That I copied it from a web source which was linked to a tabloid was to share it here, because it has been vetted before. Steve has taken the subject out of context and lambasted the cosmonauts as anyone else that durst mention the word angels among us.

Here's another book where the experience of the cosmonauts is shared. It also states the story was vetted first for the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. These were well before any tabloids got ahold of it.

"These 15 Angel Stories have been researched and reported in the following publications:

1. The National Tribune - George Washington's Angel
2. The St. Louis Post Dispatch - The Butterfly Angels
3. The Indianapolis Star - The Wingless Angel of Boltaña
4. Rosebush Minnesota Weekly - A Wandering Vagabond
5. The London Evening News - The Angels of Mons
6. Middlesboro Daily News - Angel Sightings Underground
7. The British Medical Journal - Angel Voices
8. Boston Globe & Washington Post - Angels in Space
9. The Nonpareil & The Gateway - The Black Angel
10. The Iowa City Press Citizen - The Second Black Angel of Iowa
11. The South London Times - The Thames Angel
12. A reporter for the CBS network - Angels at The Baseball Match
13. Daily Mail (UK) & Others - Roadside Angels
14. The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina - Korean War Angel
15. Multiple Press Reports - Carl Jung's Angel: Philemon"

https://www.amazon.com/Real-Life-Angel-Stories-News-ebook/dp/B00A6IJ5KC

The Guideposts book I bought for my dad in 1994 and subsequently online in 2002 is now out of print.

And why your bellyaching about getting pushback? You're the one who started this thread. If you can't stand the heat, jet out of the galaxy (that is, unless the ABCs of gravitational pull generated by actual facts somehow manage to keep you from floating off into OCD--i.e., Obvious Cranial Delusions).

Here's that pesky reference again, since (as indicated by your immediate-above post) you're not much into actually linking to your supernatural sources:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1556038,1556038#msg-1556038



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 10:15AM by steve benson.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 12:51PM by Amyjo.

Stop with your personal attacks.

Deal with the subject instead of reacting like you most often do.

Here are the news sources regarding the cosmonauts who saw the angels in space. And note they weren't tabloid journals.

The Washington Post nor the Boston Globe are hardly considered tabloid.

Get real. You call yourself a journalist, and yet resort to your own sensationalism which is anything but sincere.

In fact you aren't really a journalist, but a satirist, who reacts to whatever you read in the news. Sound familiar? It's you who are the one who is not rational on this or other topics. You sound hysterical.

I have readily described myself as an editorial cartoonist who employs satire, metaphor and exaggeration to make my opinion points. My cartoons appear on the editorial/opinion page (not in the news sections), where I offer them up as an individual-signing commentator, not as a reporter.

Try to break some new ground here by doing something unusual for you--making a truthful assertion. You set up a strawman, so that you can then knock it down. Less than impressive.

That said, I hate to do this to you but I did win the Pulitzer Prize in journalism's highest award competition for editorial cartooning. (Actually, I don't hate doing it to you).

http://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/1993


The Pulitzer Committee's description of the editorial cartoon category:

http://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-category/215


Try to live with that, if you can. :-)



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 02:06PM by steve benson.

you appear to be full of yourself.

I readily admitted to the well-duh satirist part, as well as acknowledging that I was not a news reporter. If she hadn't brought up the subject of journalism in the first place in an attempt to level criticism, I wouldn't have addressed it. But since she did, I gave her information that was relevant to her assertion by simply providing her the facts and referring her for authentication to the Pulitzer Prize website--which happens to be a competition that is run by Columbia University's School of Journalism. If folks don't want to be corrected in this area that they don't know much about, I would suggest they consider staying out of it.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 12:29PM by steve benson.

And speaking of those personal attacks that you supposedly detest, who first called me a "liar" in this thread?

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1977211,1977456#msg-1977456



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 07:08AM by steve benson.

I already did, you who aren't paying attention.

Washington Post and The Boston Globe.

It was never said they were space aliens. That is you taking out of context over and over again.

Do you have a problem with the truth, Steve?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 06:47AM by Amyjo.

See, I am paying attention.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 01:34PM by steve benson.

mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals that provide explicit empirical support for your claims of winged space alien angels providing floating cover for in-need Russian cosmonauts.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 07:51AM by steve benson.

Here ya go:

"Alien creatures

"Alien, Alien Angels, Alien creatures, Alien or Angel, angels in space

"Alien Light Being Angels in Space Save Zlives of Russian Cosmonauts on Salyut 7 Soviet Space Station, Believe in a new Futuristic Religion"

"posted by Alien God Church
online church services, aliengodchurch
March 5, 2017

"Today we look at how God can protect humans in space.

"The Russian Cosmonauts in space were orbiting the Earth in a Soviet Space Station, named the 'Salyut 7.' This space station was situated in low earth orbit and lasted from April 1982 to February 1991. The year of the main “Angel” sighting was 1984. The crew for the particular mission was directed to carry out several medical experiments.

"On 12th of July 1984 155th day of their mission, a mysterious orange glow appeared around the Space Station, and the following statements were made by Oleg Atkov, Vladimir Solevev and Leonid Kizim:

"'What we saw were at least seven giant figures in the form of humans, but with wings and mist-like halos as in the classic depiction of angels.'

"They said the Angel like beings stayed around the ship with them for about 10 minutes. The Angelic light beings had peaceful expressions on their faces and even smiled at them! They were described as being gigantic (80 feet tall) and having the wing span of a 747.

"The Angels simply disappeared, but this was not the end of this encounter. 12 days had passed by when other Cosmonauts arrived for the next phase of medical experiments. They were Svetlana Savitskaya, Igo Volk, and Vladimir Dzhanibevok, and they too allegedly witnessed seeing the Angel beings again. This is what they allegedly reported on the experience. It sounds fascinating and mysterious to say the least.

"'They were glowing and we were truly overwhelmed. There was a great orange light, and through it, we could see the figures of seven angels. They were smiling as though they shared a glorious secret, but within a few minutes, they were gone, and we never saw them again.' . . . .

"These alien light beings could see that the Cosmonauts in space aboard the Salyut 7 were all in danger. God sent these Alien light beings to fix and protect the Soviet Space Station. These Alien light beings were all that kept the station, with its many problems from falling apart or avoiding destruction by re-entry into earths atmosphere. These Light Being aliens managed to keep the space station in one piece until all the Cosmonauts set a record for a 237 day stay and were off the station. The alien light beings even protected the Salyut 7 from high solar activity during this time. The Cosmonauts could see the smiles on these alien being as they came to help. Aliens are all built in different shapes and sizes and apparently God sent some larger size Aliens to help with this problem.

"as our prayer goes-

"ALIEN ANGELS BECKON YOUR CALL SO ALL OF MANKIND DOES NOT FALL. . . .

"From the Gospels of the Bible.

"John 18:36 Alien Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

"Jesus will return in his space ship as said in Mark 13:26

THE STARS WILL BE FALLING from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken.

"God sent down the Alien Jesus and Jesus said : Then you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

"May God bless and Protect you. May your life be enlightened and join us as we walk into the light of the future with Alien God Church."

https://advancedalien.com/?p=681

-----


To borrow from your own words, do you have a problem with reading comp, Amyjo?



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 07:55AM by steve benson.

Arguments from ignorance are only "proof" of the ignorance of the person making them.

In other words, "unknown" doesn't mean "supernatural."

Funny how even you attributed the "supernatural" to "chemicals and electrical signals..." though. You know, natural (not supernatural) things.

"You can't prove the wind exists, because you can't see it.
So I've proven the wind is supernatural."

:)

I stand all amazed at the bunk woo-woo offers me,
Confused by the facts of the science I will not see,
I grumble at books that for me are so full of lies,
Since for me, a dodo, space angels are Super Guys.

(Chorus)

Oh, it is wonderful that they should care for me,
Enough to fly for me!
Oh, it is wonderful, alien angels, yippee!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1zNFduONf6Q#



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 10:07AM by steve benson.

OP, here's "food for thought." I feel no need to defend or belabor the point.

The moment that you have "proof" of something "super"natural existing in the natural world, it becomes "natural," i.e., it exists in the "natural" world, and ceases to be "super"natural - defined as above or outside of the natural world.

You are stating that "minds" both do and do not exist in the "natural" world. The argument fails because you want to both have and eat your cake; you want it all.

You are making the claim that every human thought has (or had) a supernatural source: I would not assume you to mean that only [some] conscious [minds] have a supernatural source. If a consciousness is of a supernatural source, then so is the product of that consciousness.

An argument may state that one "has evidence for," a particular position, but that is far too gray for you. You insist on "proof," writing yourself out of any reasonable discussion or debate.

And you do this in a single subject line.

The "nature" of consciousness has been argued (discussed, debated) for thousands of years. Your statements bring nothing new or novel to the table. You can Google "philosophy" to read those arguments.

Supernatural doesn't mean "out of this world." It simply means humans lack the capacity to fully understand or comprehend what is happening or why. It's therefore considered a phenomenon, rather than an explainable occurrence.

Buddhism attempts to explain the difference between mind over matter this way:

"Mind and Matter (Nama-Rupa)

"What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind."

According to Buddhism, life is a combination of mind (nama) and matter (rupa). Mind consists of the combination of sensations, perceptions, volitional activities and consciousness. Matter consists of the combination of the four elements of solidity, fluidity, motion and heat.

Life is the co-existence of mind and matter. Decay is the lack of co-ordination of mind and matter. Death is the separation of mind and matter. Rebirth is the recombination of mind and matter. After the passing away of the physical body (matter), the mental forces (mind) recombine and assume a new combination in a different material form and condition another existence.

The relation of mind to matter is like the relation of a battery to an engine of a motor car. The battery helps to start the engine. The engine helps to charge the battery. The combination helps to run the motor car. In the same manner, matter helps the mind to function and the mind helps to set matter in motion.

Buddhism teaches that life is not the property of matter alone, and that the life-process continues or flows as a result of cause and effect. The mental and material elements that compose sentient beings from amoebae to elephant and also to man, existed previously in other forms.

Although some people hold the view that life originates in matter alone, the greatest scientists have accepted that mind precedes matter in order for life to originate. In Buddhism, this concept is called 'relinking consciousness'.

Each of us, in the ultimate sense, is mind and matter, a compound of mental and material phenomena, and nothing more. Apart from these realities that go to form the nama-rupa compound, there is no self, or soul. The mind part of the compound is what experiences an object. The matter part does not experience anything. When the body is injured, it is not the body that feels the pain, but the mental side. When are hungry it is not the stomach that feels the hunger but again the mind and its factors, makes the body digest the food. Thus neither the nama nor the rupa has any efficient power of its own. One is dependent on the other; one supports the other. Both mind and matter arise because of conditions and perish immediately, and this is happening every moment of our lives. By studying and experiencing these realities we will get insight into: (1) what we truly are; (2) what we find around us; (3) how and why we react to what is within and around us; and (4) what we should aspire to reach as a spiritual goal.

To gain insight into the nature of the psycho-physical life is to realize that life is an illusion, a mirage or a bubble, a mere process of becoming and dissolving, or arising and passing away. Whatever exists, arises from causes and conditions.

-ooOoo-"

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/73.htm

We can quantify brain waves, and how the brain works in the Information Age than at any other time in our history. We still have not mastered how the mind works, or stream of consciousness. They are separate albeit intertwined.

"Home British & World English supernatural

"Definition of supernatural in English:

"supernatural

"ADJECTIVE

"1(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
‘a supernatural being’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 Unnaturally or extraordinarily great.
‘a woman of supernatural beauty’


"NOUN

"the supernatural

"Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.
‘a frightening manifestation of the supernatural’
More example sentences"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supernatural



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 01:36PM by steve benson.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Supernatural doesn't mean "out of this world." It
> simply means humans lack the capacity to fully
> understand or comprehend what is happening or why.
> It's therefore considered a phenomenon, rather
> than an explainable occurrence.

So anything you don't understand is "supernatural?"
Sorry, no. Again, that's simply an argument from ignorance.

Ironically, TSCC has reaffirmed by belief in the supernatural. No mere mortal could have conceived the evil of TSCC in its diabolical perfection.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 01:30PM by steve benson.

I'm having trouble seeing what you think you have proved here.are you trying to prove that the mind exists, and is a separate entity from the brain?
Your second premiss is that you cannot prove that the mind exist; so from that premise you conclude that the mind exists? And then somehow derive from that that it is somehow more than the functions of the brain?
You lose me in the move from "you cannot prove that the mind exists" to "therefore the mind exists…"

"'What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.'

"([Former] vice President Dan Quayle--this was part of his address to the United Negro College Fund, whose slogan is 'a mind is a terrible thing to waste')"

http://www.bauer.uh.edu/rsusmel/Other/Quayle.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2017 01:29PM by steve benson.