Friend email 3:
You're probably feeling confused because maybe my words are not expressing my thoughts clearly.
If the mind is as unreliable as you say, then no scientific data or perception can be trusted because those things you consider standard was created by the same mind you call inaccurate. You will never have a basis for truth if the mind is inaccurate such that you cannot trust its interpretation. Now if someone's interpretation of something differs from yours or an accepted standard, why does that automatically mean the differing person is the one at fault? The world was flat to all but a few, and those few were the misfits, until the majority realized for themselves their own misinterpretation. In other words, what you believe to be accepted truth, is only because you have specific understanding or strongly held beliefs, but you cannot claim everyone has the same understanding such as the concept of scientifically accepted truths. It's only accepted until it is not, just as social norms are only norms until it is not. Just because you do not understand someone else's understanding, doesn't make them the delusional. In any case, if the mind is inaccurate, then even your understanding should be suspect because it is still your mind that perceives and interprets all data, both the physical environment and any instruments to measure with. As for reality vs. accepted reality, again, you believe what you see because everyone else sees the same thing. That doesn't mean it is reality. It simply means we all have the same instrument to measure what we perceive (the eyes, for example). But we all know the eyes are limited in its perceptive abilities. Hence the need for scientific instruments. But even then, you must interpret the information of the instruments and unlike the eyes, an instrument only displays what the creator wants to display. It is an interpretation of the instrument creator. BTW. This too is an example of the creative construction of the body, the purpose for the body's current condition is the same reason why scientific instruments are the way they are. It was designed that way. Why aren't non-living scientific instruments appearing by random chance through the billions of years, whether on this planet or in space or anywhere else for that matter? Or computers? Or even a knife? Why does all created things have specific qualities for life (sun, dirt, gravity, air, etc.) and not things like man-made goods, which is much simpler than living entities?
If you do not believe in a God, then of course you do not accept any purpose for your existence because you do not believe you were created, so explaining purpose from the point of view of creation was moot. So I chose to demonstrate that purpose exists even without your belief of a creator. Science is looking for purpose as well. Why does something have certain qualities? That is discovering purpose. But science does not look for purpose in creation as a whole, just as you are saying, because they cannot answer philosophical issues scientifically so they don't bother, not because there is no purpose. So to argue that purpose is not necessary for existence, then neither is purpose necessary for anything else. We don't need to understand anything, we don't need to enjoy anything, etc.. But you give purpose to something that was created, then why can't you yourself have a purpose, since you were created as well, whether randomly or intelligently? If there was no purpose for the pizza, then it wouldn't exist and you couldn't care enough to make it and it surely wouldn't just appear out of nowhere for you to enjoy or ignore. Even if it did randomly pop out of thin air, wouldn't you wonder "what is it and why is that there?" Choosing to believe there is no purpose is fine if you're fine with it. But you can't argue there is no purpose for existence as nothing would have meaning then and you just proved there is meaning to some things, at least, just as I was trying to prove there is meaning to things just by its existence.
Ok, so if you're saying a God of any description could exist, but you are not convinced yet, then what difference does definition make? What I was trying to do is say that what science calls energy, the religious call spirit. So if they can be described and characterized as equivalents, then spirit can be called energy and God is both, just using different terminology to explain the same phenomenon. You're not saying terminology makes proof impossible, are you?
If matter and mass are different, then where is mass within matter? Without matter, you have no mass. Without mass, you have no matter. What's the matter?
Look at the periodic chart. It shows the components of matter. An atom is a nucleus and electrons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
) They are energy particles. Science doesn't know what energy particle is (I don't either). They only observe a charge to them. They don't understand how, but they just know it. These atomic particles has mass. That is why Einstein's formula works. The bonds that hold the atom together is the energy component. I believe the dark matter that science is looking for is the mass of the energy itself that bonds the particles since I believe even the charged particles are simply a form of energy, not simply the particles themselves, and they have mass. Because they cannot observe the electromagnetic force of the energy, they are searching for the missing mass as another particle.
I don't think arguing that my descriptions of science is suspect because you think I'm claiming more knowledge than the experts, is a reason to reject my point. That's like saying "I don't think the messenger is a messenger so I'll ignore the message". If what I am saying is wrong, then simply respond to it with counter arguments of fact to correct it and explain why my use of science is wrong. If you do not know what I'm saying, then it probably would be worthwhile to look into it. Who knows, there could be some information to help formulate your beliefs differently. That's the whole point of my argument. Without knowledge and understanding, you're creating a belief that may be incomplete, just as those who worshipped the Sun because they believed it was a god. Belief that a god does not exist is no different. Your argument is that having no belief is not having a belief. But if you think about it, belief that something isn't is not the same thing as not having a belief. You are claiming a belief, that god does not exist because no proof exists. That is a belief. Having no belief is saying "I don't have an opinion either way".
So, a damaged brain demonstrates a reduced mental facility. How does that prove the mind is the brain? If my computer's cpu was damaged, the computer wouldn't work, but my code is still intact. Nothing about my software was damaged. It will continue to operate logically, once the cpu is repaired. This is the same concept. The brain is a facilitator for input/output between the mind and the body. If that facilitator is damaged, there is reduced ability to communicate between the mind and the body, thus demonstrating reduced mental facility. I skimmed through that paper, but it is equating mind and brain, which is the typical belief. I am claiming they are separate and distinct, just as a computer CPU is only a facilitator of the software, which gives the CPU the appearance of intelligence. But I as the programmer created the software and gave it logical operation using the facilities of the CPU. The mind uses the brain's facilities to manipulate the body and its environment. It knows its environment because of the sensory inputs.
I'm trying to explain things using my limited scientific knowledge because I avoid using feeling and emotions as a reason for belief. I find that illogical as an argument. So the crux of my argument is that matter is composed of energy. If you don't believe it, ask any physicist. Chemical reactions does not describe matter. It only describes changing molecular structures, not atomic structures. But at the end of the day, it really comes down to whether one wants to find the truth, or they want to defend their truth, or they don't care. Like I said, it doesn't hurt me or you to believe one way or another. But it does affect your reality upon death. Not in terms of punishment, but in terms of what your experience will be like after the body. If I am right, and the mind is distinct from the body, then your mind will continue to operate and it will receive sensory data that is beyond the physical. You will experience whatever your mind interprets from that sensory data, no longer filtered by the 5 senses. This is what I believe, which is why I talk about it.