The Thesist and non-Theist Brain

[William]

"I am only able to see gibberish"

I am presently sharing my Generated Messages with a variety of internet platforms and have noticed that non-theists insist that they only see 'gibberish' [unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.] whereas with theists - no matter what particular belief they have - they appear to be able to - at least - get the gist of any GM - even if some of it is not understood.

To begin with, I was highly skeptical and thought that non-theists were being disingenuous [pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.] and in that, I used other ways in which to try and help them to understand what was taking place, [such as diagrams and analogies], but nothing helped.

This has lead me to question my skepticism and I am now wondering if it is just the case that once an individual unreservedly believes that they - the mind/consciousness - are nothing more than brain chemicals, anything contrary to that understanding simply isn't able to penetrate because "The Mind' only happens in brains and is the reason minds exist."


Is it the case that
1. non-theists are simply unable to 'get their head around ideas' which are outside of the idea that we are simply emergent properties of brains, [every other idea is gibberish/gobbledygook

or

2. are they just being disingenuous?

[Tcg]

Brains are brains.

Is this true?

For example, are you saying that this brain in a jar...;



...is the same as the brain in your head?

or are you meaning something else?

Of course not. This would be the same as the brain in my head:



At least according to some.

Let's double check what I meant:

There is no reason to think, well no valid reason, to think there is a theist brain and a non-theist brain.

Tcg

[Tcg]

Skeptic non theists therefore display a characteristic which is not evident in any of the other forums, which suggests that those who firmly believe that they are [consciousness is] a creation of brains, are simply unable to understand any contrary belief, and visa versa.

Not at all. Contrary beliefs are usually not hard to understand. Agreeing with them is a different story. "Not agreeing with" does not equate to "unable to understand."


Tcg

[brunumb]

Is it the case that
1. non-theists are simply unable to 'get their head around ideas' which are outside of the idea that we are simply emergent properties of brains, [every other idea is gibberish/gobbledygook

The way I see it, if someone is already invested in one brand of woo they are less likely to be critical of another brand of woo.

[William]

Windows of Opportunity.

Makes some sense but not really sure how it answers the question.

[William]

Let's double check what I meant:
There is no reason to think, well no valid reason, to think there is a theist brain and a non-theist brain.

This appears to be gibberish

[William]

Not at all. Contrary beliefs are usually not hard to understand. Agreeing with them is a different story. "Not agreeing with" does not equate to "unable to understand."

So you are suggesting that it is a case of non-theists being disingenuous when they say they do not understand?

[JoeyKnothead]

We can all find profundity in a string of words, theist and non alike.

[Tcg]

Not at all. Contrary beliefs are usually not hard to understand. Agreeing with them is a different story. "Not agreeing with" does not equate to "unable to understand."

So you are suggesting that it is a case of non-theists being disingenuous when they say they do not understand?

Of course not. "Contrary beliefs are usually not hard to understand." is not an absolute statement. It is a conditional one. Thus the word "usually." This leaves room for some contrary beliefs that truly are hard to understand. As you've documented, non-theists aren't the only ones who have difficulty understanding some "messages."


Tcg

[Sherlock Holmes]

"I am only able to see gibberish"

I am presently sharing my Generated Messages with a variety of internet platforms and have noticed that non-theists insist that they only see 'gibberish' [unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.] whereas with theists - no matter what particular belief they have - they appear to be able to - at least - get the gist of any GM - even if some of it is not understood.

To begin with, I was highly skeptical and thought that non-theists were being disingenuous [pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.] and in that, I used other ways in which to try and help them to understand what was taking place, [such as diagrams and analogies], but nothing helped.

This has lead me to question my skepticism and I am now wondering if it is just the case that once an individual unreservedly believes that they - the mind/consciousness - are nothing more than brain chemicals, anything contrary to that understanding simply isn't able to penetrate because "The Mind' only happens in brains and is the reason minds exist."


Is it the case that
1. non-theists are simply unable to 'get their head around ideas' which are outside of the idea that we are simply emergent properties of brains, [every other idea is gibberish/gobbledygook

or

2. are they just being disingenuous?

I'd argue that the atheist is it an intellectual disadvantage, they have (in most cases I encounter) adopted scientism, empiricism, philosophical materialism and that has implications one of which is the inability to conceive of a reality in which mind is not some "emergent" aspect of physical brains. The theist on the other hand makes no such assumption, non material, non causal activities are allowed because there's no rational reason to insist they aren't.

This really all boils down to the atheist trying to frame reality within a purely scientific model, this is not a good fit and that was recognized centuries ago by philosophers aplenty, of course modern scientism views philosophy with disdain and even discounts it and that is another problem with atheism, namely atheism prevents one from moving beyond scientism, it is self limiting. Truths that might be out there are beyond the reach of the atheist because their materialist position itself prevents then from ever discovering anything that is outside of scientism. This is why some speak of "gibberish" - they cannot understand that their choice of worldview inhibits intellectual growth.

Here are some interesting talks about this from the BBC's excellent "In Our Time" series, a 45 minute radio show where topics in science, history, philosophy etc are openly and freely discussed by a panel of academics with no agenda or preferred viewpoint:

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #19]

If indeed that is the case, why even interact with them, since nothing a theist might say would change the closed looped materialist system that the non-theist engages with?

[I ask myself the same question.]