U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-25-2013, 04:00 AM
 
39,257 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5102

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Egerton View Post
I consider myself an agnostic (I don't know, and I can probably never know, but that won't stop me enquiring) but here's a couple of thoughts from a simple man. 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was God' - my interpretation of that is that our ability to communicate, create and invent at the advanced level that we do is in itself the God, and we need look no further. Perhaps, also, there is a sense or senses science has yet to explore which connect us all at a sub-concious level - I'm thinking of a human equivalent to a computer network - billions of people (out-ports operating at a concious, clearly visible, level) and a common base of wisdom and understanding (the main-frame operating at a sub-concious level), which we can all key into for help and guidance (prayer?), which basically makes humanity one God, complete in itself.
I am sure that Mystic would agree with you there. His belief is also in a sort of cosmic mind which is to be regarded as nature having consciousness. Since nature is, does and originated everything, it deserves to be called God. He has also produced an ingenious mechanism or explanation (Synthesis) postulating Dark Matter (which isn't proven as yet, but is fully expected to be real) as the mechanism or vehicle for this consciousness.

Now, you may see it differently. Perhaps humans linked by a sort of shared mental telepathy which we can't use as a sort of free mobile phone but more a sort of shared empathy with occasional shared /transmitted thoughts.

I am reminded of Jung's common consciousness, though I see that DNA encoding, biological and indeed material 'consciousness', plus unknown stimuli and mental prompts plus good old coincidence (1) can explain this -or at least is an equally feasible explanation.

(1) I posted something about people praying around a collapsed shack ( a remembered news -shot from Katrina) the day before I knew anything about Moore. Just a coincidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2013, 04:14 AM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,255,169 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
NO . . . they would not have ANY subjective anything. That is the point of the thought experiment . . . to control for only objective processes.This is what you and the others do not see, No Capo. What is missing in the processes you describe is the sense of what it is like to BE the processes. Objectively processes feel nothing . . . they are just processes. They do not experience anything . . . they just process. They behave in response to the processes but that is it. The difference for a subjective being is that we DO feel and experience the processes and know what it is like to BE them.
No, they were specifically postulated to be people not philosophical zombies. If we assume everything is identical, down to the atomic structure, then the materialist assumption would say they will not only act the same way, but think and feel the same way, since thinking and feeling are also biological actions.

You are jumping way ahead and assuming the point that the exercise is supposed to illustrate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Let me clarify . . . the purpose of engaging in a thought experiment is NOT to refute it or argue against it on any basis, No Capo. It is not a proof of anything . . . it is to illuminate or highlight an issue that is otherwise obscured from normal view or difficult to grasp . . . as this qualia/subjectivity issue seems to be for so many. We are so caught up BEING SUBJECTIVE as we experience and evaluate everything . . . we do not consider it. We cannot avoid it. We take it as given in the inner consciousness and use the subjective words and pronouns without thought. We have difficulty abstracting our thoughts long enough to try to objectively evaluate the system.
I understand the purpose of the thought experiment, but if it isn't communicating its point clearly then it needs to be refined or the underlying point being made reexamined. Evidently if you assume the answer before you start, this makes perfect sense, but the thought experiment evidently does not put me in the same place it does you, because I don't see that it has made its point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
By imagining what P1 WOULD be experiencing differently by knowing what the future would bring . . . you are supposed to see what the qualia/subjectivity aspect is all about. IOW . . . some "subject" knows and experiences differently and is not just objectively processing and responding atomistically.
The way I see it, when you introduce this part, you introduce an objective change not only in P1 but in the observer. if P1 knows something different than P2, they are no longer identical. Not only that, but the observer has skin in the game, he now has an interest in the outcome, because it causes him pain.

I don't see that the idea of an issue being evaluated differently when it is my health/money/life/etc on the line as opposed to some detached scenario is inherently unrepresentable biologically. Basically I don't get why there is something magical about subjectivity. Even physics says that what you measure is different depending on your frame of reference. Why shouldn't there be a difference here as well?

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 04:35 AM
 
39,257 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5102
Smashing post, Capo. Yes, there does seem a tendency to include factors that are related to evolved biological traits and when that is pointed out, that is apparently not part of the mental experiment. Which is why, like misuse of analogy, using this stuff to Prove something it has to be exactly analogous, not cherry picked or bespoke designed to prove the analogy and thus the fact.

You are right in that introducing an observer rather changes the rules. As I said to Gaylen, if we were (indeed we are) different persons to those of yesterday, what are the logical implications? None, other than for a postulated observer who has, as you say, 'skin' in the game. Other than this feeling of identity preservation that goes with the Biology of these genetically patterned structures we call life -forms.

I was thinking of another analogy. Last night as I was piping up under the moon. If we take one of those odd 'sculptures' made of tortured wire and put it in a crusher, what has 'gone'? It is just the same stuff as before but it isn't the sculpture that we identified as art and even had emotional feelings about. The answer is, it isn't the material, but the pattern.

Art is of course, like music (apart from the How and why) subjective. Which is to say man made. many an artist and composer has ended up at a loss and drinking because they pared away art and music to find out what it was apart from human input and ended up with nothing. This stuff is all invented by us. It is done with a mix of Biology and evolution - a mix of How and why. The 'What' is one or other and probably a mix of both.

Searching for the 'what' is a chimera.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-25-2013 at 04:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 06:15 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,945,258 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
The point of the story is to get us to think about the role of subjectivity.
I'm not sure how a scenario where some objective facts are hidden from some observers, and then some objective events happen to one observer and not another has much to do with the idea that materialist theories will never explain the subjective results of brain function.

Quote:
If you want to embrace eliminative materialism, then you are welcome to do so but, then you must logically defend the idea that it really makes no difference to you whether you are person P1 or P2 in the story.
Why? There's an objective difference between the lives of P1 and P2, which by definition makes a difference regardless of their subjective interpretation of the events. If you want to argue that the idea of that years of torture "really makes no difference" that's your call, but I'm not going to fall for it.

Quote:
(Again, if every aspect of subjective experience is fully reducible to purely objective terms, then it is logically impossible for subjective feelings, per se, to make any physical difference in the world – either because subjective feelings don’t really exist, or because they are mere epiphenomena.)[/font]
If we can use objective scientific study to explain the operation of X, it renders X incapable of making physical differences in the world? I'd think the history of science would refute that claim pretty quickly.

Quote:
If you want to be logically consistent, what you cannot do is insist that subjectivity is nothing but the purely objective elements and forces of physics, then say that it makes any difference to you whether you are person P1 or person P1 in the story. You need to bite the eliminative materialist bullet and admit that it really makes no difference if you are P1 or P2.
But you've just told us there's an objectively measurable difference between the outcomes of P1 and P2. Why should we be surprised that their subjective interpretation of these events are changed as a result?

Last edited by KCfromNC; 05-25-2013 at 07:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 06:21 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,945,258 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
NO . . . they would not have ANY subjective anything.
Sure they would. Up until the point W1 and W2 diverged, they'd have identical subjective experiences. After the worlds changed, they'd have different ones due to the change in environment.

Quote:
Objectively processes feel nothing
That's false. We have lots of objective evidence for feelings in certain types of animals.

Last edited by KCfromNC; 05-25-2013 at 07:24 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 06:34 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,945,258 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
The central point is this: In purely objective terms, the switch makes no difference to the natural evolution of physical states in either world. If there is any significant difference caused by the switch, this difference can only be understood by subjective beings who understand the subjective difference of "being P1" vs. "being P2". But notice that even this subjective difference is a "difference that makes no difference" within the worlds until the alien invasion.
Yep, notice than an objective event caused the difference here. There would be lots of objective evidence of an alien invasion. That would have obvious implications on the brain states of the people in the world being invaded.

Quote:
If the worlds had been forever identical, then the switch would have been forever meaningless.
I'm uncomfortable with the use of "meaningless" here. What kind of meaning are you looking for? How about "undetectable", even though that brings us back to the point that we're talking about objectively measureable events being the key to the divergence between P1 and P2s subjective feelings.

Quote:
Recognition of the important subjective difference only comes into play when we consider the difference in terms of our subjective perspective upon what we assume to be the subjective perspectives of P1 and P2. The fate of P1 changed radically on account of the switch. This is why, in question#3, I asked you to imagine that you are P1.
It would objectively suck to be P1. But that sort of emotional view of the events are tied to the objective fact that being an alien slave wouldn't be a fun time.

I still don't see the issue. All you're showing is that objectively measurable events change the brain states of people. I'd think that's the last thing you'd want to be showing if your goal is to prove that we need more than objective evidence to explain subjective experience.

Quote:
Given what we mean by the terms "objective" and "subjective," there is no logical means by which we can explain our reluctance to be P1 if we limit ourselves to discussing only the objective elements of physics.
Can you think of no objectively observable reasons why the threat of death might have some logical relationship to someone's feelings?

Last edited by KCfromNC; 05-25-2013 at 06:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 12:02 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,683,341 times
Reputation: 478
Very interesting



The problem in opinion for now with P1 and P2 is that the aliens are necessary in order for the outcome in the story. So what happens is the individual and the target subjective quality is not independent of a required association from somewhere.

The story does not rule out the subjective issue in both individuals. I could see the argument and example if one of the two did NOT wind up with a real subjective disposition, or it it was cancelled out somehow. The story tends to suggest the base subjective has been addressed and it has not...only the experience changed not the value of the root or base subjective quality. So the only think that changed was in fact translation of the setting, I don't see how translation of the force's can logically impart an idea that the force's themselves contain the value.

So what is proposed is that the subjective quality requires a unity or combinational property for it to "happen" The subjective value cannot be without something in wait, so it is also a potential in its nature or classification.

In keeping with above, a person cannot be conscious without anything in wait, to be conscious about, seems fair. So the life and wiring or equip in the brain allows for processing in what would be a multi faceted way including process remarkable to the chemistry of the unique individual including history.

The chemistry and the experience in the unique individual, requires the abstract acknowledgement consciously or unconsciously in the mind in order to get at the unique subjective experience which then we marvel at in our experience and individuality. This would be system orientated for the obvious and adds, the abstract to the particular mix.

The abstract in recalling history, neglects time. It will offer recollection in history for advantage, and also allow imaginative propositions as though they are actually "happening" and we know they are not.

Above installs a reality, relative to the operations of infinity......as time is not allowed to obstruct what is imagined in history to be real and remembered, or proposed in say for example imagining a round circular object to roll more freely down a hill. There is only one point in contact if set up properly with the wheel.

So here we have something which is needed in order for the subjective quality to 'happen.

If we could say with certainty that a starry night , shifted around with simply viewing..or if everyone focused on the moon and tried to entice it somehow...we know our effort would have no effect on the moon.

So the first point of order if correct, is to require a mutually noticed reaction of some kind out of the force's or nature to qualify looking for evidence in nature or the force's of a quaila particle or potential. Subjective reality don't forget is a potential in of itself.

If I take a small beach ball, and its sitting on top of say the water...I need to push it down through the water in order for the ball to carry on 'motion through the water" The water push's back on the ball. It does not push back on the ball if its only a three inch puddle. So here we have created an issue with the water which allows us to use it as a model for time space and gravity. The push back is the gravity idea...

Substitute water...for time space and hold onto the notice in recognizing gravity is everywhere in the Universe. Plus dencity is entwined with displacing a volume of time space. Everything in the universe is in motion through time space in an environment totally saturated with gravity.

As the hypothetical planet moves through time space, what is it really doing ? It is displacing time space which is architect-ed out in a fluid yet variable gravitational reality.

The planet stretches time space which is enclosed in gravity from other such bodies. Gravity creates gravity. Its the uniform push back in time space on the beach ball in the pool

So the moon orbits because the distance from earth and the time-space it is displacing resulting in its contribution results in a subtraction of both earth and moon in effect on each other, so they orbit one another, "relative to the entire motion in the universe. So what were left with is the only way for gravity to exist, is with the presence of gravity from another source which allows gravity to exist in its suggested association requirement of co-dependency in objects, within time space. ( I don't mind being wrong but lets face it, science has no formal description for gravity)

The idea is that you cannot have gravity without gravity because the force is co-dependently natured. So the idea with the scientists and packets of gravity are not in keeping with this kick at the cat. Time space in its volume..is the carriage vehicle for gravity in the idea.

So what we now have is people all wired up with a techo brain for sensitivity, its all about sensitivity to gravity. If we are in the presence of wrong or demented whatever, we pick up on the root fear, which would be a base heightened managing comprehension of what life ultimately represents, and an on going fight against it. This can then be itemized as a resistance. A resistance to the force's which then cause's an "experience in the reality of the force's and an expression of them in more weight, more draw, a heavier less light-some or free disposition, from a distorted and real translation causing the force gravity to express itself and its presence, and does at sub atomic levels.

This is seen very very easily in cougars. They cue in on this fight when over-viewing for first impression analysis. They study the people and key into the translation or management of gravity in people to get a take on aggression...they are feeling out gravity management and intuitively just like us measuring urgency in survival...the time space is effected and carries the gravity translation ...I think they instinctively know we are meat eaters.

So here without intending Ive blasted the field idea and man's special idea of god consciousness out to outer space...either that or the popular idea should canonize cougars.

So what were left with is looking for the subjective potential in time space because in this, is the transportation in the two gravitational requirements...which creates the new gravitational subjective system or zone I guess. Each conscious thought would be part of a system don't forget, individually possible as well collectively. Notice two individuals nicely orbit each other without "pull....when they get along. This pull is real and has to do with surviving in a gravitational environment, which in principal gravity is what defeats or decays.

So where is the subjective potencial in the creation ?

I will throw two stargazzer chips in on a potential in the force gravity for harmony...negating gravity itself and the quest of the universe in this struggle for the disorder, in the varying degree's of gravity and its influence in creation, with all the identifiable mass .

A light particle seems suspect in some strange small way... as it would be the key holder closest to qualifying in the special ability in the abstract mind..its motion through time space could be said infinite and constant, as it cannot what..? get pushed or pulled from another force, it is a constant and could be said accomplished relative to mass..

Notice quantum particles act just like people in crowds, but very different individually...they interact with mass, we know this...and I think its their very small weightlessness that creates the illusions we see in quantum...IOW..their reality relative to their own existence is seen to be strange...only because the gravitational influence is always in a flux with this scheme, and we simply could never measure such minute and small significance's. Ok I just rambled this off quickly and enjoyed the exercise. I can't understand for the life of me why the scientists don't surmise at least for a kick at the cat with the BB being a consequence of two unifying and possibly expanding realities out of a collision. The collision causing mass in the start up with whatever values which the two expanding players would consist of.

So the organization is caused by a multi gravity environment trying to eliminate gravity itself and orbit a harmonious existence without push or pull. Because of time and scatter, it takes time for the universe to evolve in this manner. Mass wants to become light...and light wants to become mass, maybe they are both triying to get it on...maybe some kind of getting it on is how this thing happened. For such a fuss./.I cant see a solo deal...or maybe there is cosmo porn or something I donno.

Last edited by stargazzer; 05-25-2013 at 01:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,984 posts, read 14,273,166 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
I disagree - but even if I did not I would say the same thing - logic IS capable of evaluating the arguments for theism and find them very violently lacking. As such atheism is "more logical" because it is a position that does not require holding any illogical or baseless nonsense as true in order to adopt it.
Well said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
What conscious reality are you talking about, exactly? There's no evidence of anything like that existing here in our reality. If we're just making stuff up, it could be anything - a created being, something that's conscious but otherwise powerless, something which has no desire to be a god, or pretty much anything we can imagine.
That's what happens when people don't understand brain chemistry....they just make it up as they go along and label whatever they don't understand as "god."

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
NO . . . they would not have ANY subjective anything.
P1's experience relative to P2's experience is metaphysically subjective, since only P1 experienced it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
My point is that it is the religions that you have issues with . . . not God.
Both....

The mere fact that you capitalize "God" in spelling is revealing.

You're suggesting that this "God" is important; special; worthy of my attention, praise or adoration; worthy of my time; and an host of other things that I should fetter and fuss about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
That does nothing but substantiate my belief that the "spiritual fossil record" contains evidence that our spiritual understanding has been evolving from a DNA template . . . much as our physical evolution has been.
No, it's just common sense, logic and reason.

Do not murder...common sense. How do I benefit from murder? I don't. If I murder another, then I invite retribution upon myself, and prior to the 1600s, society was organized as supra-tribes, tribes, supra-clans, clans and families, so "myself" means my [hyper-extended] family or my clan.

How exactly do I benefit by having my family or clan annihilated in a raid, resulting in my own death as well?

I may have benefited in the short-term, but over the long-term, well, that ends up being a total loss, and it's the long-term that sane, rational, intelligent, logical and reasonable people concern themselves.

Do not steal.....how do I benefit by posting the men in my clans as sentries guarding the fields --- from theft and murder --- while the women work the fields?

I don't....but if everyone agrees that murder and stealing are wrong, then I can have the men work the fields while the women pitch wool. So instead of having food to eat and trade for things --- like clothing -- we have food and clothing and we can trade both for things to improve the quality of our lives.

Nothing spiritual about that. It's just common sense.

And it's quite amusing to suggest that Jesus somehow advanced the "spiritual fossil record."

"Teacher, how does one obtain Eternal Life?"


Follow the commandments....I do....then sell everything you have and give the money to the poor....I did....then give away everything you didn't sell to the poor.....I did.....then become like the wind....I am....then be like a child...I am that, too....then be born-again....I was....then comply with all 613 Laws of the Mitzvah.....I do.....then honor your mother and father.....I do......then hate your mother and father.....I do....then eat my flesh and drink my blood...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You have just described the mandates and processes that the existence of Nature (God) places on our existence . . . and that is my point.
It does not do it consciously....it's all random and chaotic.

Nature is violent, so I am not surprised that you would praise and worship it like any other of the violent god-things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is the mandates inherent in the EXISTENCE of God (your Nature) that determines what and how our existence manifests and establishes the role we play in it.
The role we play is based on subjective experiences, as they relate to people and ideas, not Nature or god.

It was people who sent me to Honduras, not Nature or god-things.....and it was my subjective experiences that resulted in a request for transfer --- no one else transferred....and so I ended up in Panama and Iraq....due to my subjective experiences, not objectivity, Nature or god-things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Your laws of physics (and Chemistry or Biology or whatever) are the laws of God established by the requirements of God's existence and life processes.
No they aren't, and how bizarre is it that any god would have requirements?

Good luck reasoning with Gravity.....while you're falling...or even before you fall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
None of us did, Mircea . . . your point is? It is what it is and its consequences will be what they will be . . . regardless WHAT we think or believe.
No, our subjective experiences result in the consequences of our own experiences, so what we think and believe is very important, more important and more real than any god-thing.

What we think and believe will not alter objective reality.....we cannot change the shape of the Earth or its orbit around the Sun just by thinking, but we could physically alter the Earth's shape and its orbit...we could use our technology to push a moon of Jupiter into a collision course with Earth.

Nature as "god" is silly. That's something I'd expect from child with 5 years. Nature is impersonal; it doesn't think; doesn't have a "consciousness"; will arbitrarily punish and harm; will arbitrarily reward; and once Humans harness the power of Nature -- and Humans will eventually if they don't blast themselves into oblivion --- then your "god as Nature" thing will be subordinate to Humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
It is the attempt to make "nature" more than it is that is crass from such users trying to sell "god" to us.
Of that there can be no doubt.

Objectively....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 03:49 PM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,683,341 times
Reputation: 478
Four...Ok away from it and in review from memory of my entry I wanted to mention last sentence's were not making a comment in any rude way one way or another and was simply more free to joke around after the thinking. Usually I like joking around esp on saturdays with golf a potential, my fav place to joke around because everyone Ive ever golfed with is so serious about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 09:17 PM
 
40,186 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6058
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
By the way, I noted your post that you are a pantheist and monist. I understand what you mean, but that merely illustrates my axiom -concepts before definitions. Pantheism is (rather like agnosticism) used to mean a lot of different things. Though it does come down to the same idea -God = everything.
Reread my post, Arequipa. I am a PanENtheist and monist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top