Posted on 08/30/2009 2:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
No. But then I am a Christian, and believe that God became a slave so that we might be gods.
But along comes ZC seemingly with an axe to grind and for some (Not me, I ain't playin') the thread is wrenched into a discussion of Scripture and the early days of Creation. Shortly those who disagree with ZC are so threatened by the reality of the supernatural events of the Hebrew Bible, NOT that there's are any personal attacks or mind reading going on or anything.
It's intriguing.
Great observations!
Amen.
human n. An animal so busy proving that he's right that he doesn't have time to find out what he's right about.
LOL!
You k now psalm 2 where it says that He who sits in heaven laughs and holds “them in derision.” I take great comfort in that line. I know God wants great things from all of us, but I hope at least He finds out posturing and strutting failures funny.
you: This is a straw man created to ridicule the position you just elucidated. What other purpose does it have? To insist that if Adam was created as an adult then we don't know if our memories are real is absolutely ludicrous and dishonest. It is nothing but an attempt to insist on the natural formation of all things via purely natural means over vast aeons.
On your other points, I agree there is no purpose in our continuing to discuss the matter. I have been as clear as I know how to be and yet your recaps of what I have said do not comport with them.
It has been an honor though to submit my testimony, so I do thank you for the sidebar!
LOLOL!
ZC,
I’m sorry I have not responded to your ping yet. I am only popping in for a second. I moved 500 miles yesterday to start a new job and don’t have regular internet service yet.
I’ll get back to you as soon as I can. Have a good week!
Point of order here: What exactly constitutes a "false memory?" Seems to me if something is in memory, then it by definition is not false. It is there because it was generated from a real experience or perception.
In short, I take David Hume's analysis of the basic, fundamental constituents of human knowledge to be correct. He says that the origin of all our ideas, and thus of all human knowledge, rests ultimately on just three essential things: perception, memory, and experience.
So of course I'd be interested in ZC's insights into how memory becomes "false," or under what circumstances it can legitimately be said to be false.
It's a very narrow question. Perhaps ZC would regard it as an idle one. But we do have to dot all our epistemological "i's" and cross all our epistemological "t's"....
You wrote: "If God were to create false memories, and I am not saying that He did, they would be “real” to us." I too believe that would be the case. But I doubt God would do such a thing. For He is Truth, and so would not lie to us or cause us to be misled.
Sorry I've been so scarce around here lately, dearest sister in Christ! My computer is STILL in the shop, and I've been very limited in my ability to come on-line since last Tuesday.... Sigh.... I've missed out on some very interesting conversations!
Hopefully, my system will come home very soon.
Thank you ever so much for your outstanding essay/post!
Indeed there is, ZC -- IMHO. There is (among other things) a reminder to us that man must not "reduce" God, man, or creation to purely human categories of thought, which strip Spirit out of the picture entirely. And a reminder that faith is not unreasonable; that faith and reason go together, though (inevitably) faith is the senior partner.
And when you speak of something as being "literal," you can only be speaking of words. Need I point out that words are, in essence, merely pointers to aspects of reality, and not the reality itself?
In the Beginning, God created Heaven and the earth. To seek your truth only on the "earthly side" -- which of course is the only part that is susceptible to sense perception and experimental test -- is to lose the Truth of reality.
The Creation is matter and Spirit....
Or so it seems to me. FWIW.
Perceptsion can be very fickle . . . influenced by a variety of things besides the photons, soundwaves and pressures against the skin or mollecules in the nose.
Memory is even more fickle.
—Memory is influenced by past experience;
—Perceptual sets
—Emotional states
—Reference group’s stated perceptions and biases and in many case just folks who are nearby—their stated perceptions and biases.
—events just after the event being ‘remembered.’
etc. etc. etc.
All of that is why witness testimony is so often flawed and why 10 folks seeing the same accident from nearly the same perspective can sound like they were viewing 10 different accidents.
And that doesn’t even get into dreams, visions
and now . . .
technologies which project into the brain’s synapses via various wavelengths . . .
visual images, sounds, smells, conversations, scenes, events . . .
which never happened but will then be thought of by the victim as part of the history of their life experience.
The above is not tinfoil hat stuff. It is quite real.
The visions and dreams of Daniel and Ezekiel were . . . ‘downloads’ from God of future events in symbolic form and often enough in literal form—registering on the brains of the prophets as though they were seeing them more or less in front of their faces in real time on the terra firma of the Middle East.
By definition they were truth because they came from God-of-the-angel-armies—beyond-time even though they had not yet happened.
Prayers for your computer system. Still am interested in the Maitreya ping from another thread when it’s workable for you to get around to it.
Turn this statement around, dear brother in Christ, and I would agree with it.
What Hume is saying is that memories are primary resources of the mind to which human reasoning and intelligence can be brought to bear "in the next step," i.e., in cognition.
In the description you give, it seems some "more present" or near-past experience is influencing the past memory and the way in which it is being interpreted. The latter seems true enough. But whatever the interpretation, it depends on the memory; the memory itself doesn't change; though one's understanding of it may change over time.
But we ought not to miss Hume's basic point: For Hume, a memory is a primary datum of the mind acquired by means of perception and experience, however flawed they may be.
Indeed, Eric Voegelin thought memory -- especially those memories going back to earliest childhood -- so form our later sense of Truth of the world that we ought to engage in active recovery and meditation of them. He called this process anamnesis.... He wrote a book about it, by that name.
Dear brother, I'll get to that Maitreya business when I have my own machine back. I'm using a borrowed system, and can't depend on having continuous access to it so to keep up a conversation on that topic, or any other really. It's been catch-as-catch-can for me all this past week. Sigh....
Thank you so very much for writing and kind wishes!
Actually, no.
I don’t recall all the specifics.
However, both past experience before the memory
and experiences just after the event of the memory
have both been shown
EXPERIMENTALLY
to alter the memory . . . evidently even at the neuron and neuron pathway level.
It is a bit difficult to articulate it well . . . maybe one could say a bit more accurately that past experience . . .
DISTORTS the memory.
I don’t recall if it’s in the ‘laying down of the memory trace’ that the distortion occurs . . . or in the ‘recall’ portion of the memory function, or both.
Certainly it’s clear that past experiences DISTORT PERCEPTION—LITERAL BASIC PERCEPTION. And it is likely that some similar neuron influence is going on.
Maybe when we get to the memory chapter again I’ll dig up some of the research. A bit busy at present. I was fascinating, if a bit disturbing stuff.
IIRC, I think one of the more recent startling discoveries by researchers in memory
is that
the actual neuron level ‘record’ of the memory
is so . . . changeable . . . and evidently from more than one type of influence.
Thus for the same reason the very term "molecular machine" sets me on edge: It is the wrong metaphor from the very beginning.
Take-out arrived. Must absent myself for now but will be back ASAP.
No sweat.
Then, a tad more seriously, and since I am still clambering up from the absolutely LAST time I acquiesce to an MD's wanting me to take statins, you can mess the neurons up purty good (in some, rare, folks) with prescription medicine rightly prescribed and rightly taken.
For all our pride, we are fragile creatures whom a mere breath can destroy.
I must say, in the case of Margaritas properly made with fresh and high quality ingredients.... well what's a few neurons between friends?
Hmmmmmm
Would my most fitting response be
BURP
or
HIC??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.