Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suppose I have to make a reply to this. Even though I have dealt with it before. I suppose I have got to comment on this claim that subjectivity demands Dualism.
a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal
b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4
a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident>
b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli "
That will do.
Subjective is talking about how we see things from outside. Through the mental pixels of qualia or the mental digital recording of Qualia or the taste sensing..whatever...of qualia. If Dualism is just the idea that we are in a way remote from reality (and reality exists in itself, because it is both repeatable, predictable and unexpected, for all that it is made of nothing) then that is pretty obvious but does not unseat the materialist default and doesn't in fact sound to me what we were actually talking about.
I suspect it does not unseat the default for you because you take your observer and evaluator status for granted . . . "given in the inner consciousness." You never seem to ask who, what or where the "YOU" (who is "doing the observing, evaluating, experiencing") resides within the material universe YOU are observing and experiencing. None of your reductionist material "components" seem to BE this "YOU." No problem, Arequipa . . . I will leave you to your material reality.
I'm jumping in here for the first time...hey, new blood is always good, eh?
I don't see why anyone would believe in God if they had never experienced Him.
Why?
Because someone said there was one?
I will never and have never tried to change the mindset of an atheist.
They are fine the way they are...I mean, unless they are not fine, that is.
Atheists come in all sizes. This particular one would have come to believe in God if the evidence had stood up. It does not. It is the believers who try to first use the evidence to prove Bible, Jesus and God. The results have been that the evidence has unseated all of them and I have confidence that it will be one day seen that the Gospels are a Christian Paulinist overpainting of an original sketch of a failed Jewish messiah. The evidence is there, I believe, in the gospels.
That leaves a sortagod. That is the one you have experienced and so has Mystic and you both firmly believe and do not question that it is real.
I accept that the experience is real as I accept that NDE's and OOB's and 'Voices' are real. But I have heard voices myself and even as a kid did not believe they were angels and now the evidence indicates they are not.
There is also evidence that the 'enlightenment', the ecstasy induced by prayer and the mystical experience is all 'subjective' and 'God' is only a feeling that we get and is common to all humans.
I could be wrong and am always looking for some evidence that a god is real. So far I haven't been presented with it. Just this 'I have felt it and you haven't and i KNOW its what I think it is.' argument.
With respect to you and to Mystic, too. It is significant that I am willing to accept that it could really be Something More but neither of you can entertain the possibility that it isn't. You have Faith. I don't.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-19-2013 at 05:57 AM..
I suspect it does not unseat the default for you because you take your observer and evaluator status for granted . . . "given in the inner consciousness." You never seem to ask who, what or where the "YOU" (who is "doing the observing, evaluating, experiencing") resides within the material universe YOU are observing and experiencing. None of your reductionist material "components" seem to BE this "YOU." No problem, Arequipa . . . I will leave you to your material reality.
Of course I ask it. Why do you think I keep worrying at this particular bone? Why do you think I keep listening to you given the amount of illogical not to say dishonest argument that we have found you using?
I am always open to some evidence for Something More. Epiphenominalism, Qualia, Subjectivity and now Emergence. All these have been chucked at me as some sort of evidence that materialism is false.
Now I don't have a Phd on my wall but I can see more clearly than you that these questions about what is qualia, what is matter, what is the Observer and what is the feeling of identity in no way are disproof that materialism in any way I understand can have a mechanism that produces these feelings, sensations and ideas we have.
Consciousness, Emergence and perception do not in any way provide a killer for monism/materialism before the mechanism is even known. You have claimed that it does and rather taken advantage of my lack of expertise in this area to try to bamboozle me, as you have tried to do right from the first time you presented your synthesis. And ingenious though it was it turned out to be worthless printed banknotes without any gold reserve to back it up.
Now, I don't care whether you give up on me or not. I am not here to please you, O master. I am here to learn and if I learn that there is evidence for God, a cosmic consciousness a Soul or just 'Something More' I will take that on board. So far the evidence has turned out to be fiddling and semantic jugglry and claims that something is Obviously Proven to anyone with wit to see it.
And it turns out to be nothing of the kind, but a Faith -based desire to make the murkiest philosophical jargon look like evidence for God.
I have noted disappointing dishonesty in the arguments of the philosophic posters -for -Jesus that have rolled up here. I have noted a shocking misrepresentation of atheism in what should be a standard Philosophical reference book. I have noted Plantinga being able to use Philosophic journals to push the twaddle of Creationism.
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark, and it's religious philosophers.
A quick look at Emergence and there seems to be confusion between the ability of increasingly complex forms to do things that the individual components couldn't - which can be traced back to the inherent properties of matter that do not become apparent until we get a lot of it together (1) and the subjective view of humans about qualities of huge, complex or imperfectly understood objects which views may be entirely false.
So far Emergence as the killer of monism/materialism and its default on which the burden of proof that underpins the logical basis for atheism seems to be anything but.
But what?
But...wishful faith - based thinking.
(1) example. the atoms that make up snow. Not cold. put a lot together and they make a snowflake (which had an obvious God -designed pattern - to the subjective view of an ill -informed God -believer who either doesn't know about crystals or prefers not to) which is a bit cold (the subjective perception of our nervous system - real enough but only to us - and animals (2) and get a load of it together and it is very cold. Killingly cold. Because of a lot of it. Of course it is and killing cold has emerged. What in the name of wonder is so mystical about emergence? If matter can produce more than than the sum of its parts would suggest on paper, there is nothing devastating to monism -materialism about that.
(2) Mystic has always been a bit coy about explaining about whether the Cosmic Mind Aka God also gives qualia to animals - as of course that signposts matter as producing sensation - reactions in biological forms, not God.)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-19-2013 at 05:55 AM..
From wik...Material monism (also called Physicalism and materialism), which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental or spiritual can be reduced to the physical.
The problem with all these things is that the words used are only vague observations relative to available perception in time space. Material and physical are obviously more in their role as they exist in time-space which is an issue...with relativity none of these idea's have a solid foundation, a waste of time but for recognizing what is unknown.
Last edited by stargazzer; 05-19-2013 at 12:09 PM..
Yes. I don't care for the definition of materialism as maintaining that everything can be reduced to the physical but a rather more agnostic atheist -definition that says that the physical/material/natural is known, the Something More is not. Until that changes, the theory that everything can be explained in terms of material actions is the better default one.
Given that material on the cutting edge of Woo looks odd, anything that smacks of God, soul or ectoplasm still has to make a case. The business of trying one wangle after another to try to get the default and burden of proof changed about so the God -bods don't have to prove anything is wearisomely persistent.
Of course I ask it. Why do you think I keep worrying at this particular bone? Why do you think I keep listening to you given the amount of illogical not to say dishonest argument that we have found you using?
You wound me with this accusation of dishonesty, Arequipa. Please cite any argument I have made that is dishonest. You have typically been "classy" (as Miss Hepburn says) . . . but this is a significant departure that troubles me.
Quote:
I am always open to some evidence for Something More. Epiphenominalism, Qualia, Subjectivity and now Emergence. All these have been chucked at me as some sort of evidence that materialism is false.
Now I don't have a Phd on my wall but I can see more clearly than you that these questions about what is qualia, what is matter, what is the Observer and what is the feeling of identity in no way are disproof that materialism in any way I understand can have a mechanism that produces these feelings, sensations and ideas we have.
Consciousness, Emergence and perception do not in any way provide a killer for monism/materialism before the mechanism is even known. You have claimed that it does and rather taken advantage of my lack of expertise in this area to try to bamboozle me, as you have tried to do right from the first time you presented your synthesis. And ingenious though it was it turned out to be worthless printed banknotes without any gold reserve to back it up.
I have never tried to bamboozle anyone, least of all you, Arequipa and no one has in any way shown my Synthesis to be worthless . . . though the same disingenuous culprits repeatedly try to claim that it is. The one supposed "expert" who was recruited to undermine me and my views not only failed . . . but seemed not to fully grasp the philosophical significance of the mathematics he was using routinely . . . especially about the mass/energy equivalence as field phenomena.
Quote:
Now, I don't care whether you give up on me or not. I am not here to please you, O master. I am here to learn and if I learn that there is evidence for God, a cosmic consciousness a Soul or just 'Something More' I will take that on board. So far the evidence has turned out to be fiddling and semantic jugglry and claims that something is Obviously Proven to anyone with wit to see it.
And it turns out to be nothing of the kind, but a Faith -based desire to make the murkiest philosophical jargon look like evidence for God.
I have not given up on you, Arequipa . . . there is nothing to give up on. You are your own person. I sensed your sincerity in trying to understand why I hold the views I do and the reason for their certainty. I sought to aid you to better understand . . . that's all. I have never hidden the fact that my intellectual quest has been driven by personal experience . . . and the usual suspects have predictably claimed confirmation bias. The difference is that I had absolutely NO predetermined beliefs that needed to be confirmed . . . just the unquestioned EXISTENCE of God. I abandoned ALL the previous concepts of God and started from scratch to build a concept that matched existing science to satisfy my intellect. Then I scrutinized what I call the "spiritual fossil record" looking for any consistent "cognitive template" for our cognitive capabilities and functioning . . . given that there is a physical template for our physical capabilities and functioning. I found one and it led me to the consciousness of Christ as described in the Jesus legend. Its impact has been as predicted . . . making it valid in my eyes as a "spiritual" addition to my intellectual understanding of God. The undeniable match with the consciousness I encountered clinched the deal FOR ME. I never expected you or anyone else to take MY certainty as the basis for your beliefs . . . or to in any way alter your own views . . . just understand mine. You seem to have achieved that understanding . . . so I was leaving you to your views. It is the derogatory accusations of dishonesty and attempts to bamboozle you that troubles me.
Quote:
I have noted disappointing dishonesty in the arguments of the philosophic posters -for -Jesus that have rolled up here. I have noted a shocking misrepresentation of atheism in what should be a standard Philosophical reference book. I have noted Plantinga being able to use Philosophic journals to push the twaddle of Creationism.
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark, and it's religious philosophers.
I am not responsible for any dishonesty or twaddle perpetrated by anyone else, Arequipa. I am genuinely hurt by your negative (and definitely "unclassy") attitude toward my attempts to help you understand why I believe as I do.
Yes. I don't care for the definition of materialism as maintaining that everything can be reduced to the physical but a rather more agnostic atheist -definition that says that the physical/material/natural is known, the Something More is not. Until that changes, the theory that everything can be explained in terms of material actions is the better default one.
Given that material on the cutting edge of Woo looks odd, anything that smacks of God, soul or ectoplasm still has to make a case. The business of trying one wangle after another to try to get the default and burden of proof changed about so the God -bods don't have to prove anything is wearisomely persistent.
But there is a problem. It suggests there is some kind of case anywhere to be found which denies a focus in a form of God -which would do nothing but follow in a logical way with everything that is known. (Save man's known madness.
So the real problem is the position needs to show some case or leverage from anything at all that is known which would give some consideration for making the position, that what we know logically in follow, would arrive at a godless form in conclusion. I could see some argument if the world was not in motion or similar.
Its really no different in its twist and turn of the table then the issue of the hard problem....the problem in of itself supposes there is something essentially wrong with the dynamic evolution of matter. Also, tailored idea with the atheist definition still remains subject to much which is unknown for underlining. Real mystery exists containing more volume in the properties of physical and matter and so on, which are used to form up a decided philosophy. There is no foundation available, its out in the ocean with no paddles. A focus in scatter because nothing can ever be appointed in the value or however of the whole without all the data in the subject matter. ( the strict idea of it in a definitive way not the individual, exploration is what it is.
Last edited by stargazzer; 05-19-2013 at 06:56 PM..
You wound me with this accusation of dishonesty, Arequipa. Please cite any argument I have made that is dishonest. You have typically been "classy" (as Miss Hepburn says) . . . but this is a significant departure that troubles me. I have never tried to bamboozle anyone, least of all you, Arequipa and no one has in any way shown my Synthesis to be worthless . . . though the same disingenuous culprits repeatedly try to claim that it is. The one supposed "expert" who was recruited to undermine me and my views not only failed . . . but seemed not to fully grasp the philosophical significance of the mathematics he was using routinely . . . especially about the mass/energy equivalence as field phenomena. I have not given up on you, Arequipa . . . there is nothing to give up on. You are your own person. I sensed your sincerity in trying to understand why I hold the views I do and the reason for their certainty. I sought to aid you to better understand . . . that's all. I have never hidden the fact that my intellectual quest has been driven by personal experience . . . and the usual suspects have predictably claimed confirmation bias. The difference is that I had absolutely NO predetermined beliefs that needed to be confirmed . . . just the unquestioned EXISTENCE of God. I abandoned ALL the previous concepts of God and started from scratch to build a concept that matched existing science to satisfy my intellect. Then I scrutinized what I call the "spiritual fossil record" looking for any consistent "cognitive template" for our cognitive capabilities and functioning . . . given that there is a physical template for our physical capabilities and functioning. I found one and it led me to the consciousness of Christ as described in the Jesus legend. Its impact has been as predicted . . . making it valid in my eyes as a "spiritual" addition to my intellectual understanding of God. The undeniable match with the consciousness I encountered clinched the deal FOR ME. I never expected you or anyone else to take MY certainty as the basis for your beliefs . . . or to in any way alter your own views . . . just understand mine. You seem to have achieved that understanding . . . so I was leaving you to your views. It is the derogatory accusations of dishonesty and attempts to bamboozle you that troubles me. I am not responsible for any dishonesty or twaddle perpetrated by anyone else, Arequipa. I am genuinely hurt by your negative (and definitely "unclassy") attitude toward my attempts to help you understand why I believe as I do.
Yes, yes, sorry. That was perhaps unfair. It is rather that I think the arguments you make are invalid, like the one taking God as a given or that the materialist default is unseated or nature is 'obviously' God. These are invalid and pointing it out just makes no headway. I understand that you think they are justified and I don't.
But there is a problem. It suggests there is some kind of case anywhere to be found which denies a focus in a form of God -which would do nothing but follow in a logical way with everything that is known. (Save man's known madness.
So the real problem is the position needs to show some case or leverage from anything at all that is known which would give some consideration for making the position, that what we know logically in follow, would arrive at a godless form in conclusion. I could see some argument if the world was not in motion or similar.
Its really no different in its twist and turn of the table then the issue of the hard problem....the problem in of itself supposes there is something essentially wrong with the dynamic evolution of matter. Also, tailored idea with the atheist definition still remains subject to much which is unknown for underlining. Real mystery exists containing more volume in the properties of physical and matter and so on, which are used to form up a decided philosophy. There is no foundation available, its out in the ocean with no paddles. A focus in scatter because nothing can ever be appointed in the value or however of the whole without all the data in the subject matter. ( the strict idea of it in a definitive way not the individual, exploration is what it is.
The case manifestly rests on the amount we know about the way the world wags which does not require a god. Nowhere. Not in a single instance. That makes materialism as a preferred theory the default and, while there is still a possibility for god -input to be found in the various gaps in our understanding there is not a good reason to give it credence. Not in cosmic origins, not in the origins of life, not in human mystical experiences.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and 'God' is only a feeling that we get and is common to all humans.
I am here to learn and if I learn that there is evidence for God, a cosmic consciousness a Soul or just 'Something More' I will take that on board. So far the evidence has turned out to be fiddling and semantic jugglry and claims that something is Obviously Proven to anyone with wit to see it. 
