The mind as evidence of god

[JoeyKnothead]

Recently in another thread, someone said such as...

"The mind is evidence of God."

For debate:
Please offer some means to confirm the claim is true and factual.

Please remember this section of the site doesn't consider the bible authoritative.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

"The mind is evidence of God."

What do you mean by 'God'?

I leave that to those who'd do their defining.

I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...

I really like your cosmic mind hypothesis, but for me it's unsatisfactory in light of our understanding of biological processes.

Why? Is it to do with the evidence or is it to do with your personal preferences?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

"The mind is evidence of God."

What do you mean by 'God'?

I leave that to those who'd do their defining.

I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...

I really like your cosmic mind hypothesis, but for me it's unsatisfactory in light of our understanding of biological processes.

Why? Is it to do with the evidence or is it to do with your personal preferences?

I find biological processes a superior candidate as an explanation for the mind. I see little that'd convince me the mind is ever separate from the brain.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

"The mind is evidence of God."

What do you mean by 'God'?

I leave that to those who'd do their defining.

I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...

I really like your cosmic mind hypothesis, but for me it's unsatisfactory in light of our understanding of biological processes.

Why? Is it to do with the evidence or is it to do with your personal preferences?

I find biological processes a superior candidate as an explanation for the mind.

Yet there is no evidence to support that biological processes are not themselves derived from mind.
This being the case, in what way makes this belief you have, "superior"?

I see little that'd convince me the mind is ever separate from the brain.

If there is a Cosmic Mind, then there is no reason to assume there is not a Cosmic Brain.

Therefore, one does not have to separate mind from brain.

In the case of the idea we may yet have another experiential reality after the death of our individual brain, a Cosmic Mind could accommodate, by 'uploading' and 'saving' our overall personality developed in this stage - into another reality experience - all housed within the workings of the Cosmic Mind.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

"The mind is evidence of God."

What do you mean by 'God'?

I leave that to those who'd do their defining.

I think that the mind is evidence the we exist within a creation...

I really like your cosmic mind hypothesis, but for me it's unsatisfactory in light of our understanding of biological processes.

Why? Is it to do with the evidence or is it to do with your personal preferences?

I find biological processes a superior candidate as an explanation for the mind.

Yet there is no evidence to support that biological processes are not themselves derived from mind.
This being the case, in what way makes this belief you have, "superior"?

I see little that'd convince me the mind is ever separate from the brain.

If there is a Cosmic Mind, then there is no reason to assume there is not a Cosmic Brain.

Therefore, one does not have to separate mind from brain.

In the case of the idea we may yet have another experiential reality after the death of our individual brain, a Cosmic Mind could accommodate, by 'uploading' and 'saving' our overall personality developed in this stage - into another reality experience - all housed within the workings of the Cosmic Mind.

That is a common fallacy 'you have to prove that biological processes are not derived from mind'. No, the burden of proof is on you (as claimant) to show that they are. We know that biological processes exist and 'Mind' is a faith -claim until you validate it. Thus biological processes are the first choice hypothesis for what produces human mind even aside from the research that shows human mind detectable in brain activity and that animal awareness and problem - solving is known and can traced in the evolutionary record. It seems to me that Mind outside of the animal consciousness and as the source and origin of anything has the burden of proof on it.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #14]

Who are you replying to?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #14]

Who are you replying to?

The prior post above, obviously.

Oh Ok I'll put it ibn.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #14]

Who are you replying to?

The prior post above, obviously.

I see no connect between your reply and what I wrote.
Normally whenever the word "if" is used, no claim is being made.

[JoeyKnothead]

Yet there is no evidence to support that biological processes are not themselves derived from mind.

We can replace "mind" there with "biscuits" with equal validity. I'll stick with the experts on thisn.

This being the case, in what way makes this belief you have, "superior"?

It's a provisional belief, but I find the supporting data exceedingly compelling.

If there is a Cosmic Mind, then there is no reason to assume there is not a Cosmic Brain.

If. I see little reason to conclude such is the case.

Therefore, one does not have to separate mind from brain.

I don't think they can be separated, least not with current technology.

In the case of the idea we may yet have another experiential reality after the death of our individual brain, a Cosmic Mind could accommodate, by 'uploading' and 'saving' our overall personality developed in this stage - into another reality experience - all housed within the workings of the Cosmic Mind.

Fascinating, but speculative.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #14]

Who are you replying to?

The prior post above, obviously.

I see no connect between your reply and what I wrote.
Normally whenever the word "if" is used, no claim is being made.

ok. You were not making a claim. Then the mention of a cosmic Mind is neither here nor there until such a thing is validated as a claim.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #18]

We can replace "mind" there with "biscuits" with equal validity.

Is that to say that we can replace 'in the mind' with "in the biscuits". Is it therefore valid to say "the biscuit is a powerful thing" et al?

Or, are such throwaway comments simply irrational response to rational ideas?

I'll stick with the experts on thisn.

Do these experts also refer to minds as 'biscuits' and call that 'valid'?

This being the case, in what way makes this belief you have, "superior"?

It's a provisional belief, but I find the supporting data exceedingly compelling.

Provisional and Compelling to what? The position of Atheism?

If there is a Cosmic Mind, then there is no reason to assume there is not a Cosmic Brain.

If. I see little reason to conclude such is the case.

No one is asking you to conclude that is the case. You are simply being asked to be open to it - perhaps - being the case.

In the case of the idea we may yet have another experiential reality after the death of our individual brain, a Cosmic Mind could accommodate, by 'uploading' and 'saving' our overall personality developed in this stage - into another reality experience - all housed within the workings of the Cosmic Mind.

Fascinating, but speculative.

As are all human theories, whether they support ones particular preferred position or not.