DrmDoc

I'm curious, how does your idea of faith specifically answers that question?

You must certainly understand that faith is an answer literally without substance. Faith is immaterial at its core and it wouldn't be faith otherwise. It's a mental placebo humanity takes to salve an intangible hurt or satiates a curiosity uncomforted or inconvenienced by the truth. Faith doesn't answer the questions science does when those asking the questions want answers based on legitimate evidence.

My thinking is that it wouldn't be faith if it tried. The strength and weakness of faith is ignorance of truth--it's that miraculous pill that seems to cure our ills until we learn it's just sugar.

If I understand correctly, you appear to be advocation the existence of a higher power or intelligence as an essential component faith and why you have it. Although I agree that some responses here haven't been as tactful or civil as they could have been (e.g; equating faith with clinical delusion), scientific discussion demands critical and rigorous evidence for the ideas we espouse. As I stated previously, I don't believe people of faith are all deluded; however, I do believe in evidence for our ideas that can withstand withering criticism. Though some comments in this forum make it seem so, it isn't personal--it's just science.

Therefore, your perspective of faith is in the choice of one among many ideas impacting one's perceived worldview. Of what value is such faith when the idea believed comprises nothing more than one among a collection of notions without foundation in anything remotely or substantially real, proven, or provable?

What you seem to be advocating here is, essentially, the incorporation of either an untruth or unprovable ideal into one's worldview. Personally, I consider holding a worldview based on untruths or unprovable ideals untenable. A basis, for me, necessitates provability. Otherwise, believing in what's not or can't be proven will most certainly lead to self deception.

To believers, in some instances, faith is enough because it doesn't require an explanation--just belief. However, believing doesn't necessarily make what is believed truth especially to those of us who desire proof or evidence before acceptance. In other words, faith isn't truth because truth demands real and tangible evidence.

Faith seems to support or fills the void in that someone's understanding of reality where reason, evidence, or comprehension is insufficient or where same doesn't sufficiently satisfy his or her expectations. Faith appears to evolves from a conclusion by believers that aspects of their reality are too exact or miraculous to be random or the result of some definable process within the scope of their understanding. They'd rather exist in the mystical or believe in the magical rather than accept the ordinary or consider the mundane. Because they are so taken by the magic, they can't or won't envision or consider anything less than the magical.

If I may comment on this previous post, the legitimacy of faith resides in its psychological effect, which isn't dissimilar to the effect of delusion. Faith is a quality of mind that isn't based on anything considered scientifically legitimate or tangible. It emerges, IMO, as a stopgap for lack of knowledge, insight, or understanding most often amid exigent circumstances. Delusion, conversely, is distinguishable by its established association with mental illness. I don't think it's fair to suggest that all people of faith are all mentally ill and, frankly, I don't believe they are. They are, I feel, mostly misguided or unwilling to investigate beyond their Eden of ignorance that so comforts them or to which they've grown so accustomed.

The topic is "What is faith" and why you have it. The "why" implies some of us may have reasons for having faith. Your reason appears to be what you believe is the absence of answers to questions you consider fundamental. In this way, you perceive faith as a bridge between what is known and what is unknown or unknowable. However, this perception merely shows how you use faith rather than how you define faith. By definition, faith is the antithesis of reason and religious faith is the antithesis of scientific methodology. Faith is belief without reason, basis, evidence, or need for same. Science and faith are not the same in that reason, reasoning and evidence are essential to the nature of science. Without same , it isn't science. There are reasons for the emergence of religious faith and those reasons may be tangible to believers. However, reason, reasoning and evidence aren't essential to the nature or foundation of religious faith. So my feeling is that the religious faithful visit science discussion sites to test their metal as an emulation of Daniel in the lions den. What they don't seem to perceive is that this confrontational desire to engage these websites is an expression, ironically, of their lack of faith. Their insecurity in their beliefs, IMO, compels a desire for confirmation akin to being surrounded by a pride of hungry lions yet remaining unscathed and steadfast in their faith.

Racist insults, regardless of context, is never about "someone." It's about using a false and humiliating opinion of a "people" as a weapon. Emerging from the least evolved among us, any and every expression of racism is an insult and assault on a people, on humanity itself.

From the title of my first book, The Dream Document. It was a clumsy attempt at publicity for my book at various websites many years ago when I believed I knew all there was to know about dreams and dreaming--frankly, I did not.

If I understand correctly, nature affirms your faith. That affirmation, as you've further explained, is supported by what you've perceived as a continuous cause and effect process evident in the quantum nature of space time. I can't say that what you're conveyed here is entirely clear to me but it seems that science, based on your use of terms, is in someway central to what you believe. Is it fair to say that no conflict exist between your notion of science and your beliefs?

Where in nature and, specifically, how does that perspective support your belief? I've observed how believers justify what and why they believe by attacking science usually through a perspective that science hasn't or can't produce all the answers some have sought. What some believers do not seem to realize is that science and faith are the same from that perspective. Unquestioned belief is the very nature of faith because questions inure doubt in the shield believers employ against doubt. However, what we believe isn't always true. Sometimes what we believe is wrong. Many of us, for example, quickly learned that some of the notions we were influenced to believe as a child weren't true (e.g., Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Boogie Man, etc.). Science is an attempt to insure that what we believe isn't wrong or, in some cases, a myth.

To the believers here who, oddly, chose to post to predominately science discussion forums, what is faith and why do you have it? Perhaps you've discussed this topic variously before and, if so, I entreat your brief indulgence further. My perusal of discussions here suggested to me that some of you do not seem to have a clear perspective of what distinguishes faith from science. Most often arguments against science are used as justification for faith; however, those arguments do not appear to define a basis for your religious faith. As I perceive, faith is a shield believers use against life's doubts, insecurities, and traumas. Some of you may view science as an attack on that shield. However, none of this provides your understanding of faith or what compel your belief. What have you observed, experienced, or accomplished that supports your faith? Is that support tangible?

Researchers at the prestigious Lund University in Sweden have determined that a cryptochrome (CRY4) in eyes of birds enables their perception of Earth's magnetic field (magnetoreception). According the university's April 6th article: I imagine adaptations to the human eye may soon arrive. Enjoy!

Melatonin is a hormone produced in the brain by the pineal gland. Its effects are expressed in the brain rather than the muscles. You can access further details via the Wikipedia link I've provided herein. I hope this helps.

Actually, all parts of the brain are involved in someway excluding the prefrontal cortex, which normally experiences a state of low activity (transient hypofrontality). The only exception to hypofrontality amid dream sleep is when the brain experiences a state of lucid dreaming. Overall, dreaming is a byproduct of activations in the brain arising from the metabolic processes that occur during sleep. Our brain is the largest consumer of our body's energy uptake and its metabolic demands persist throughout the sleep process. Periodically, during sleep, our brain becomes active as it increases the flow of oxygen and glucose rich blood into its structure, which is stored as glycogen. The imagery in our dreams are how our active brain, amid sleep, synthesizes the neurological effects of its increased metabolic activity. The quantitative study of dreaming is called oneirology; however, there are more important processes other than dreaming, IMO, that occur amid sleep of which many people are not aware. One of those processes are those involving the most recently discovered glymphatic system. I hope this helps.

One major rule of this website is for members to not render medical or mental healthcare advice other than direct inquirers to professionals near them with whom they can meet privately and personally vet. No anonymous advice you receive through sites like this should be seriously considered where the proper treatment of your condition should be your highest concern. Seek professional help and advice only from well qualified mental healthcare providers whom you can meet personality and privately discuss your therapy options.

Therapy! With a qualified mental healthcare provider.

I read that article, what a fascinating find it was!

Possibilities are infinite; however, the possibility of a consciousness that exist independent of human experience isn't human consciousness, which I think is what we are discussing here. Human consciousness is defined by the nature of human experience and is, therefore, inseparable from the physiology that makes human experience possible. The properties of human brain structure and function give rise to that expression of human consciousness that enables meaningful human experience; therefore, the origin of that expression resides in the properties of human brain structure and function which, again, is confirmed by the absence of consciousness and meaningful life experience without the presence of brain tissue and function.

Although you "agree that a physical apparatus is necessary (at least in humankind) for the expression of human consciousness", you do not appear to understand what this agreement confers. Agreeing that "a physical apparatus is necessary" confers your understanding that brain structure and its related functions are indeed essential to "the expression of human consciousness". Although I've emphasized necessary and essential, the keyword here is expression. What you do not seem to understand or have fully considered is the role of brain function in the expression of human consciousness. The expression of human consciousness originates through the properties of brain structure and function. Brain structure/function is that elephant in the room of your consciousness perspective that you seen to be ignoring. Consciousness originates as an expression through brain function and agreeing that the brain is necessary for the expression of consciousness confers your agreement that the brain is indeed, in someway, essential or central to the origin of that expression. Essentially, you have agreed that consciousness cannot be may manifest without brain structure and function. Yes, it does. Nothing becomes fact or truth without evidence and we do not have evidence supporting your ideas. Conversely, we do indeed have complete evidence that the expression of human consciousness originates through human brain structure and function by the abundance of tests, studies and incidents of the absence of stated consciousness in the absence of the stated brain structure and function. Theories and hypotheses aren't truths or facts without real evidence that can be tested, studied, or replicated. Unlike the idea of consciousness originating from beyond the brain, the facts regarding consciousness originating from the brain can be tested, studied, and replicated because we have the brain as a tangible and testable resource for research.

Well, let's see if we can put our debate to rest. Given what measure of knowledge you may have of human physiology, do you believe you would still possess the means to physically express consciousness with the destruction of your brain after its removal from your body? Do you think you'd physically be able to ambulate, articulate, and live a meaningful life without even the thinnest layer of brain tissue? If you've bothered to review any universally accepted medical evidence--evidence derived through scientific methodology--your answer to both questions should be a firm no. You would be affirming that you cannot express consciousness without some brain structure. There is no evidence derived through universally accepted methods in medical science and research for the existence of human consciousness without the presence of brain tissue. In other words, unless you can produce real evidence of a live human being living a meaningful life indicative of consciousness without the slightest measure of brain tissue, then any answer in the affirmative to my questions would be clearly disingenuous. Your appear to be asserting that consciousness is independent of brain function without evidence supporting that assertion. Belief in an idea without supporting evidence is religion, not science. Are you discussing religion or are you discussing science?

OK, by extension of your logic, would I be correct in assuming that our sun in itself is consciousness because its activity conforms to the physical laws and nature of the universe? That would also suggest that blackholes, dark matter, and a multitude of other stellar phenomena are expressions of consciousness because they too conform to those laws and nature. Even a loadstone, also by extension of your argument, would be considered conscious because its properties and magnetism are a product of physics. You seem an intelligent fellow, which is why it's surprising that you fail to comprehend how this argument doesn't adequately explain the nature and specific form of consciousness as produced by humanity. What happens on a quantum level in humans really isn't that much different than what we may find elsewhere in nature, which suggests a distinction that may only be more precisely understood by studying brain function. We study the brain because the expression of consciousness in humans has not been observed without its presence and functional evidence. All things, including brain function, may operate according to the physical laws and nature of the universe but not all things produce the equivalent of human consciousness as human brain function appears to do. The information a system receives doesn't always determine its output as evinced by humanity's varying responses to equivalent stimuli. Input and output aren't "separate universes" as you've envisioned, they are merely components of a singular system. Huh? There's no evidence in universally accepted science that human consciousness persist beyond brain death, which leads to the unequivocal conclusion that consciousness originates from brain function. Even investigating the idea that human consciousness originates from some force, energy, or stimuli outside the brain must begin with the only organ known to be essential to its expression. This wouldn't be a quick read but rather a separate and lengthy discussion involving our brain's functional anatomy and evolution. If you are sincerely interested, we should open a separate discussion thread in the appropriate forum.