LimbicLoser

There is really so much involved here. (Yeah, I know I'd said it above too, but it just keeps getting more involved each time I go over the OP again.) In following along with the recent posts, I would wish to point out that we would surely want to keep our categorical (definition) differences between the terms 'translate' and 'decide on more (or most) likely autograph textual points through textual criticism.' We would do better to keep in mind the more often so distinction between 'translate' and 'render' (as in assign a target language word to an original tongue word). Then, we should understand that difference in rendering, as well as translating, does not equate corrupting a text. While I would hope that the OPP would come back and help out, I still would vote that we should hold the term 'Bible' to be--for our present purpose--the commonly enough held English edition of 66 documents (or, books). I would also like to work on clarifying (so as to avoid) a common generalization I find, namely, that of just throwing out the word 'science,' or the word 'religion,' in some 'grab-all-blanket-like-statement' manner. Scientific method is one process of thinking things through and empirically checking out our thoughts, and basing further investigation on sound knowledge as we learn and build (hypothesis testing to theory refining). Scientism would be a generalization we would probably do better to avoid, and if we say 'science this, science that,' we could end up causing more confusion than we would like to. 'Religion,' however, is another one which is vague and can cause unnecessary confusion--but that is for a different thread, perhaps. I still recall the AAAS's special interest group which did the 'AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion' back in 2011, and the results of that. I fully agree, that many who work within the academic field range which lies within the academic and professional scientific-method-based disciplines, do not seem to want to apply scientific method to theist-involved religious belief system information sources; but I do reason that it can be done. The information provided in the Bible (see above temporary definition appealed to) is largely testable. The claim that history cannot be tested has no influence because it is a misguided notion for the most part; in this case, actually. Scientific method, in the broadest sense of the term, is fully applicable to us today, as it had been to those others of our genus in the year 40,000 BCE. (And neither 100 BCE, nor 100 CE, are any different.) Thus a long story made shorter, for here, includes the following: We need to fix our definition of the English word 'Bible,' and I would think that the one which I have suggested above, is a better one. We would additionally be better off, I argue, being careful to use as precise and categorically correct terminology as we can, too. The academic and professional discipline which will fall under the umbrella category of being a scientific endeavor, will be one that is based on, and stems from, the logical and pragmatic observation and thought process which is entailed in scientific method. There are many religions in the world, and always have been. That the word 'religion' is a countable noun here, will imply that there can be a single religion to subject to our focus of attention. (from among the many possible) 'Religion,' however, can also be an uncountable noun which refers to the general nebulous of the emotion which is usually entailed in the activity and ritual of any given theist-involved religious belief system, or any non-theist-involved religious belief system. (Though there are extremely few of the latter... possibly on the earliest form of Siddhartha's philosophy system; as far as I have researched and thought about it.) What any particular theist-involved religious belief system's information source says is open to being tested for falsification on any points that may possibly be tested by such manner. The sun does not revolve around any said fixation of the earth. While part of this is for another thread (rather 'off-topic here), the spirit of it will come to play in the question of investigating the better recensions of the original tongues which make the documents of the Bible, and that of corruption of the witness texts, as well.

This has been pretty much answered to (which answers I greatly appreciate for the most part), and I only wish to see if I can perhaps fine tune, a little. First of all, I wish to comment on and respond towards the title of the thread. The answer is absolutely negative. The reason for that, nevertheless, is a bit paradoxical in some sense, we can think. First of all, the 'Bible' of the general present, as a single-volume book, is simply a collection of documents. A general skimming of a document's opening chapters, will often enough give a fair answer as to whether there is any great practical advantage in reading it. Then, it is not simply reading it that should be the prime objective, but studying it as a self-contained context; and then cross-referencing with documents of a similar genre, source, and library. For example, Second Temple exemplar which we have in the extent witnesses for our Genesis, should be compared with similar documents, or documents which allude to it, from the Qumran library. One could even check the differences between the Palestinian canon (which is what we generally have in the present Torah) and Samaritan canon (or the Alexandrian, Babylonian, even). For the Christian Greek documents, it would be good to cross-reference with the fuller number of non-canonical documents, and sub-apostolic fathers, as well. However, I would additionally very much recommend that that study also involve some amount of study of the original tongue. Taking this much (the above paragraph, and this strongly urged suggestion together) I say that simply reading even several English translations and versions of the Bible (with and without several documents) is not something one should do at all. As pointed out by others above, that has been a big problem. One other than those already mentioned (and do forgive any misses on my part), is to learn. Learning is a very good thing. I would say that first of all, any particular persuasion, or position (such as agnostic, Christian, Jewish, Muslem, Shintoist, atheist, etc.) would have no bearing on the question of whether anything pragmatic can come out of studying the 'Bible.' Learning is good; information gaining is good. Also, there are some very nice, poetic pieces to be found, also some reflection of the thought of the authorship and direct-and-immediate audience of the era of penning can be picked up on. Comparative religious studies would of course benefit by such studying. (However, again, it does not follow that all of each and every document will present itself as being worth spending such involved time on.) If simply reading, yes. (See the above.) If studying, I tend to think that there is far more advantage in doing so to the degree that such can be done. "At least try," is my suggestion. I am not sure if the question will prove to be answerable, actually. A very pure Buddhist, will not usually fall under the category of being a theist, and in that general, on-the-face-of-it circumstance, may be an atheist; possibly? That need not mean that such a one will not have investigated and studied other theist-involved religious belief system doctrine sources, however. Additionally, we can rather clearly project the circumstance wherein a Muslim will deny that there is any truth value at all in the assertion that the character Jesus (of the canonical accounts) is in any way deity, or a member of some triune god. Would that make such one an atheist? Most obviously not, and yet he, or she, denies the dogma of one system, in favor of another--even if having investigated its information sources (Bible, Tanakh, Talmud, etc.). At any rate, however, I say that learning is good, and that that should be pursued. The second question is great, in one particular sense. It is the case that the 'Bible' (that single volume book of today) was created. Of course, that means that it was created by human beings through and through--in both the mere document penning of the autograph as well as the story telling involved, and the very collecting into that single codex form that we have it as (pretty much) now. Whether it is the best, or not, might have far to much to look at and match up, to answer in any definitive manner. It is a good book, yes; as are so many others--have you ever looked at the Mahabharatha?

A number of things have been laid out in the OP. I can only think that they should be handled in some good order--that order being considered good, being as it may. If 'many' were to be held primarily as being some number of translations (considering at least, for argument's sake, more than three; relative to total number existing), then I am not sure if we could assign any pragmatic value to the assertion that the Quran would be unlike the Tanakh, and/or the Greek Christian documents of canon. However, I have noticed above that studiot has highlighted the need for setting our definitions, and I agree that that is most important. Since we have a number of Christian canons held to by the several institutions which do so (e.g. Eastern Orthodox as compared to Protestant), and a number of canons held to at the later, earlier stages of canon development, we might not want to allow the term (Bible) to be so broad a thing. (I mean, even the English speaking Jew will often enough call only the Tanakh, the Bible--more precisely, the Jewish Bible.) I reason that the OPP (Opening Post Person) will have to do that. (Or, at least, ought to be the one in charge of setting that.) My choice would be to modify the term to distinguish which canon is being used. An English translation is like a copy of the recension (original tongue) which is the concerned best witness group text. Translation will (ought and should) follow the more properly determined methodological process, but will have ample chances to produce differences in the target language of translation. Of course, this happens in almost any translation situation, religious document, or not. It does not, in and of itself alone, determine corruption. I reason that this latter word has been used far too loosely by the OPP. Anyway, perhaps more on that later.

I would like to see if I may be able to help out here some, if you are actually interested, bountyhunter787. In that you have not returned, having asked the question, I am going to see if I can help with just this much; for now. You have mentioned a 'flow of electrons coming from the brain.' You have then gone on to say that, " if so could u stop them at the top of the spine where the brain meets with the spine." The contextual connection implies that you are wanting to talk about something other than the flow of electrons, or, either you are in need of a little further preciseness with your wording. In that we can pragmatically hold that all atoms have electrons, and that there are not any loose, flowing-outward sole electrons coming from either the brain, the tissues around it. As for the tissues of other fleshy parts around the head, we can understand (in a most pragmatic sense) that there are no free electrons coming out of them either. Thus electrons do not flow out from the brain, nor circulate within it,m basically. Did you intend to talk about action potentials and chemical signaling?

Just to pull this line of thought (and the response by ydoaPs has delt with one angle) out a bit further (and the concept of contradictions as well). It can well be argued that there are different levels of conflict in reporting (contradictions). At Matthew 24:34,35 we will find something along the lines of: Truthfully I tell you all, this generation will by no means pass away, and not all these things occur. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (the setting is his speaking to his disciples in private) We'll see the basic tenet in very close wording at Mark 13:30, 31, and Luke 21:32, 33. In taking the historical aspect of the literary genre, we'd be far more correct in taking the understanding that at that moment, in that said setting, the gist of what is presented in our record had been communicated (although it later got cluttered and confused, which is what we got). The second portion of the above quotes is just a Hebrew-like cliche emphasizing the truthfulness of what had been spoken. Here, however, we find that these words do create conflict of character portrayal (if you will). This is true in that in According to John, Yeshua (the overall character presented by the earliest of the early movement) told the same disciples that the spirit of the truth would tell them the truth and would bring back to their minds everything that he had told them during his ministry with them. (Jn. 14:26; 16:13) According to John totally ignores that episode, yet in the later letters, still is seen to be pushing 'it is the last hour.' (too lazy to run down the verse...sorry) The character is still being presented as having spoken the absolute truth of the course of immediate history (of that time). [cross-compare the somewhat later written 2 Peter, chapter 2] Therefore in the end, the church had to make an effort to re-interpret the report in order to maintain character unity . . . the 'last days' will be forever in the future. The character is still a speaker of truth. As pointed out earlier, of course, this is not what is usually called the 'Bible contradiction' kind of thing, though, but is a conflict of report (thus contradiction) of a different nature, which had come to be fixed in the reports which made our exemplars. As far as contradictions in the historical report, there are a few which I like...and when time allows, will point them out.

Sounds fair enough, on the surface, but I'd yet question the background to the statement. Additionally, I'd tend to think that we'd have to explore what 'a priori-like, culturally-developed-through-other-theist-based-religious-belief-systems' emotional tags might be carried along (even in a preconscious nature) in support of one's definition of 'excellent.' I like what I take to be (if my take is actually correct, at all) a humorous sarcasm in what is otherwise an honest attempt at perhaps finding a bridge to gap the overly hardened differences in the old 'book of rules-type' theist-based religious belief systems.

I think I can understand the position being presented here, but let me see if that can also be tested. This might cause some concern. We can firstly come to determine (and if need be might expound on that further, later) that we are not looking at a single book or any sorts of that time period involved in the initial cult.(1) There are, as you will know of, a good number of written works of various genre which sprung from the original Judaic activity which became Christianity (as we especially later see it in the later second century) which are will lead us back to a more centrally located oral tradition (and I'm focusing more so on the Christian works here). We might say, in that regards, therefore, that we would be dealing with a single story line in the Christian canon and non-canonical documents, but not looking at a true single volume...or book. In that line of investigation, therefore, we will have to hold the contextual and literary setting of the documents' contents to speak for themselves. It is more evident that we will find that the autographs speaking to, and only to, those of the immediate and contemporary recipients . . . and not to us of today. (thus any elements of Christianity at large in our relative age [18 to 21 centuries] considering that the writer of any document had been speaking to humanity at large, can well be demonstrated to be 'taking the original intentions out of context.' This also more so seems to support the conclusion advanced. Much has been taken out of context. I tend to think we might find some contradictions here, as well. 1. I might point out that I am using this term in the original, neutral sense, and not the more commonly negatively implied sense.

Yes, I'd very much agree with that observation. This also, is a most important thing to keep in mind; yes. The only thing that at times will trump this most obvious correct understanding, will be found to the those times when scribal changes can be deduced to have occurred to 'make the texts say what 'the church knew they were to have said.' (kind of like political correctness) Nicely written and argued post.

I really think we're gonna have to have some more precise definition, here. Is the question, in the first place, about agape? or is it more along the lines of philias, or eros[/ii]? Graham has provided a good general outline for some major portions (as far as I know) on the brain function/anatomy part (not all, but some) . . . other parts will seemingly depend on which one of the above three candidates we might be wanting to look at, at a time. Let's wait to see if the OP gets back here.

Just as a quick comment here, for information. It might also be important to keep in mind here, that we should probably refrain, in this case, from inferring so directly that 'Yeshua said . . .,' more towards, the 'character Yeshua said . . . .' This is because we can't really pin it down as absolute history. Also, we should probably think of mention of a 'slave,' as being that of a hired worker, in today's sense, and therefore not really construe it as a more specific 'slavery issue' matter. (although some portions of Hebrew history have that)

Thanks for getting back with me on that, ydoaPs, and apologies for not getting to it sooner. Yes, I understand your point. At the same time, the input I had given is my opinion that we should make an effort to adjust the meaning of the term towards that direction, than leave it at the older, unfalsifiable definition. I like the comments being made. I would tend to think (no fixed opinion at all yet) that if some thing operated in laws yet unknown, we would see it as fitting that 'supernatural definition . . . seeing as we simply don't know the laws. However, the likes of the imagination of the H. sapiens mind, I'd say will most largely remain internal realities . . . such as gods, angels, fairies and, yes, of course, invisible flying spaghetti monsters.

It might be good to work this down in scope some; as it stands, I really don't think an answer would get you what you want. The first place to start (in the event the links leave something out) might very well be the term 'action potential.' The next would be the more precise definition of the verb 'think.' As the cells diversify and those which are to become the cortical cells migrate into into position, then branch out, we could, kind of, see it as 'thinking'--but most usually it's not thought of in that way at all. When a visual target that is held in short-term memory is captured by brain through the visual process, the proper controlling system of neurons move the eyes so that the target will hit the fovea of the retinas, and fix the eyes on the target a matter of milliseconds before cognition of having seen the target is reportable. This can also be considered thinking, but usually, in the more pragmatic terms of everyday life, it is not. In the event that you were holding the memory of the desire for a pen in your 'workspace' of conscious attention (access consciousness), and found one in your visual field, there would be, we can fairly consider, some matching being done, some synchronized firing all over the place, and part of that would be to your motor and somtosensory areas. If the synch and signal strength (seemingly especially the synch) were enough, the movement would be executed along with the cerebellum and pons area helping out. However, we might answer your question by saying that by bio-chemical release, brain does that.

While the word may have had different overtones way back when, I tend to hold it as JohnB has outlined it. In today's world, the practical application of the word would best be held constant, therefore I'd always recommend such description of what 'supernatural' is--something which is not yet understood, but which is natural. At the same time, the older mythological tenets which had made appeal to the supernatural, need not be thought of as yet unknown natural laws, or events, due the fact that the contextual settings in which they were found, demanded natural events which we know have failed to prove true--such as the rotation of the earth being paused so as to cause the sun to shine on a particular area of the planet for the purpose of a single battle with the enemy; so forth and so on.

Although a bit late, perhaps, I'd be interested in offering the following question to Mr. Ray Comfort (I'm ignorant...is that a real name, or just some created epithet?) QUESTION: What argument might you present against the assertion that the information, in the form of tenets, provided by any theist-based religious belief-system, regarding the god-model of that system, is falsifiable ?

In the question that the thread poses, if we were to define that as a theist-based religious belief-system, I'd then argue that none of them are right (in the usual manner of using this word 'right' to represent empirically tested and accurately known to be true, or known to be untrue events and claims). I find what I reason to be some good points, on this thread, and some weaker points. We of course know, that our Bible of today, be that the one used by Protestantism at large, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Judaism (among a few others) is not an actual single volumed book, but rather a collection of documentations of a few formats. As mentioned, reading in context is important, but that context is not to be limited to the linguistic format alone, but to historical, cultural aspects which bore on the immediate exemplar, or scribal hands afterwards. These works form a data base, if you will, and are largely testable in that regards. Therefore, each data base from which and upon which (to the larger material degree) any theist-based religious belief-system exists, will only prove as right (see above) as the claims and statements of the data base. I argue that they are all wrong.

I'm going to short-cut here, and agree with some study results I had run across some time back (and please do forgive me for not being able to cite them presently) and say that social in-grouping gives pleasurable reward (psychologically speaking) and any following benefits. Now whether that may be such as one would find in a theist-based religious belief-system, or in a fixed group of Towards a Science of Consciousness attendees, will evidently be no different, however. Thus, one may have to answer what any difference may be above and beyond that. There, I'd (for one, at least) probably have to think a little harder--because I can't see much at all, actually. I'm going to have to disagree with the sentiment involved here. Not because any lack of, shall we say, any 'sky hooks,' but rather because I am of the strong inclination to suggest that life does have meaning, and that that meaning is very worthwhile, awe-inspiring, and postitive-in-outcome. To share in the dance of life, for the mere reason of life as a function of known and knowable reality (on the pragmatic level), is in itself, surely a miracle and something of great purpose. Live and let live.

I'll respond here in a 'first-in, first-out' manner (this thread was chronologically prior to that on what 'religion offers.' Also, I'll by-pass the somewhat 'off-topic' matter of non-Homo sapiens brain states. Now, let me please clarify my person position as well, so as to simply prevent any possible misunderstandings; even though this much also is slightly 'off-topic.' I hold myself to be more of a non-theist agnostic camp member (perhaps along with Dr. Shermer of the Skeptic Society?), yet strive to hold a difference (in, perhaps, the face of preexisting pressure against such) between what we would label a 'religion' on the one hand, and what we might be better off seeing as a 'theist-based religious belief-system.' The results of such a policy will hopefully be seen through later developed argumentation. I would hope to see an example or two, to get a better bearing on just what the process is. For example, if we were to present the concept of 'creation as an act by some supernatural being' as a metaphysical proposition, then we would seemingly be faced with the prior assumption of a theos (using the Greek term simply due to its being the root of 'theism, etc.) In that case, I wonder if it would not be more accurate to interpret the flow in the opposite manner--a metaphysical position offers a response to theistic proposition. It might only be that I need further clarification here. I would tend to assert that we can find 'offers' within the religions (using plural here due to how I hold the term religion in opposition to the more narrowly defined 'theist-based religious belief-system'), but would then have to weight them against each other in an empirical, pragmatic manner to determine their viable weights and values. However, once again, I'd like to ask for a little more expounding on the concept of 'a proposition informing a framework' here; please.

It sometime surprises me how some threads get dug up, but it also adds jest from time to time. I enjoyed reading this one, and would suggest that a couple of posts on page 2 handle the main thrust of the original question's prime concern--the number of connections in the (human) brain. As mentioned, there's no final number, of course, but a general area that one can come across. Also, as bunburryist had pointed out, we might want to define more carefully just what we are talking about. On this point, I will go for the term 'connection,' just as it is usually used. The reason for doing so (as highlighted with the matter of extracellular fluid) is that any particular presynaptic terminal will 'signal' to a more specific postsynaptic density area through the neurotransmiter vesicles. (neuromodulators and hormones are more general). The OP's quote, as also pointed out, may be off. Rita Carter does have it as: "The brain has around 100 billion neurons. There are more potential connections between neurons than there are atoms in the universe." (The Human Brain Book, pg 39 (top right box); DK; 2009) It may still be very, very premature in nature, as pointed out just above. However, I do like the way Dr. Ramachandran put it within context in his 1998 work, Phantoms in the Brain (p. 8): ...neurons make contacts with other neurons, at points called synapses. Each neuron makes anywhere from a thousand to ten thousand synapses with other neurons. A piece of your brain the size of a grain of sand would contain one hundred thousand neurons, two million axions, and one billion synapses . . . Given these figures, it's been calculated that the number of possible brain states--the number of permutations and combinations of activity that are theoretically possible--exceeds the number of elementary particles in the universe." We might choose to be liberal with that term 'elementary particle,' so as to think of something besides atoms, yet I'd tend to think he had intended that definition; otherwise, he did spell out what was intended with that 'possible brain states' a bit better. While I understand the complaint which is just above this post, I'd simply like to point out that I take such things as simply statistical sketches, used to give a more graspable image of something--thus we need not take all specifics of the terms in their most literal, and accurate, report. June of '08 only posted twice on it, on the same day

Here, we might reasonably suggest that you are talking about clinical death, rather than somatic death, correct? In that case, we would most likely not be able to say, 'after you die.' The reason being, that as far as spoken language goes, 'after you die' would refer to somatic death; in which case all neurons would be non-active. However, it is quite a fact that at the general moment of somatic death, a person's synaptic arrangement will not suddenly change; simply the neuron and glia cells which support them, will fade in function. Thinking out loud, if I may here, it might be good to more concretely lay out just what understanding might be achieved by such 'interpretation of neuron activity?' Also, if we wished to avoid a totally futuristic, and unfounded scenario, if might be good to keep in mind the limitations of knowledge at the moment--we simply cannot build a 'line of thought' from synaptic connection, now. I might also suggest, that to hypothesize, it might be good to present some data upon which the hypotheses is built?

Thanks for all the hard work, guys, gals !! ('ve been there, no the trouble...esp. [at least for this area] the Chinese spambots) Keep it up ! Thanks for giving us a little to laugh at. LL

That study sounds a bit off, if you catch my drift. Please see if you can get some info on where to find that. I'll try to get back here later in the week, or next week.

Yes, in a more volitional-like manner, I'd very much agree, very, very hard 'to do. In the sense of brain doing it, it may be very, very uncommon to have had that particular signaling, or oscillation picked up in this 'state of consciousness' fashion. Yes, there was that study done (can't recall the team, at the moment). It seems (as best I recall) to have been interpreted as being a state of 'focalness' being reduced so as to lead a type of filling in. I'll see if I can run that down again.

Just thought I might say 'HI' to some one posting a 'hi' here on this thread, for a change--since few seldom do respond, it seems. I think we may have something in common; I like to save, and I like booms too. The results of saving, I have found, is that of clutter...and well, while a clear, neat, and cleaned out office looks nice on the cover of an interior decorating design magazine, it might be charged with being the sign of a clear (as in little there), neat, and (dare I say it?) cleaned out head? So, in the end, yes...let's save ! Then there are those 'booms.' I swear, I just love the little things to death...but they are always coming, and then going, and never seem to last (especially here in Japan). But, anyway, hey . . . Welcome to SNF, cantbesaved ! (let's see if we here can't actually end up saving whatever bit is left of that 'cantbe' so as to double negative it into a positive !)

Oops! I had meant to respond to this one, some time back, and then having gotten busied and sidetracked with a long 'things to do' list, forgot about it. One matter is that of having had a seizure in the first place--for whatever reason it may have been sparked, it had happened, thus evidencing the brain build for the propensity of such. Then, that explanation given, and, screenpud's as well,　quickly reminded me of the aura which usually, but not always, occurs before a migraine (it can happen in those who do not experience a migraine). The visual results of this 'thought to be a brainstorm, of sorts,' is often geometric in nature, and can also include brilliant 'stars,' lightening-like flashes, and flashes of light, all often followed by occasional dark spots. One very noteworthy point is that there appears to be a hyperexcitable phase followed by a somewhat long inhibitional phase (possibly putting the involved neurons in 'suspended animation'[not allowing any Na, K, or Ca diffusion by pumps]) in kind of a wave pattern. This is possibly similar to a epileptic attack, and does have relation to such in some cases. Another interesting point is that these visual cognitions are always 'out there;' another case in point against any 'strong embodiment-like' philosophical arguments. Dodick, David J., Gargus, J. Jay, (2008) Why Migraines Strike. Scientific American Vol 299, Number 2 (Aug); pp 36-43;

I guess it is my fault for not surfing (if that term's correct here, for this) around on the forum more. Wow... The book interrupting Jesus had been given a very fair review by the Society of Biblical Literature's Biblical Literature Review. The author had mostly (as it turns out) taken stuff from the internet to a large degree, is not a scholar, but had demonstrated a fair range of looking at what's out there in the classical works. The book had been positioned as a rebut to Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus,' but contained some 40%, or so, of content to an earlier book of his. As far as the Bible goes, since it had been mentioned (or the matter of it had been raised) in the OP, it is not (as suggested in passing comment) a singe book in any way, but a collection of writings by a number of hands--even the first century writings. I would very strongly tend to suspect, however, that the book Interrupting Jesus (and yes, the historical personage would have been Yeshua; Jesus is an English construction) would be missing some evidence, and drawing some incorrect lines between dots as well. It does seem to temper Ehrman's work a little, however. But, I tell you what folks, if you really want to kind of attempt to find out for yourselves, you'd be better off learning some Greek and Hebrew, and getting some original tongue recensions.