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.
You do an amazing job of putting the complex philosophical issues into "man on the street" terminology, Gaylen. I remember my first encounter with the works of Alfred North Whitehead as an exercise in reading comprehension that exceeded anything I had ever encountered before. Thanks for the cites.
Yeah, the only guy I ever saw as good was a guy named OG. we was great also. I kind of clashed with him at first, it would be nice to talk to him again.
great job grey, even though I don't totally agree.
Yeah, the only guy I ever saw as good was a guy named OG. we was great also. I kind of clashed with him at first, it would be nice to talk to him again.
great job grey, even though I don't totally agree.
I sort of get a kick out of you reading an r into gaylen's name. Doesn't seem he minds, though.
I sort of get a kick out of you reading an r into gaylen's name. Doesn't seem he minds, though.
lmao, he's a good egg. Gaylen understand how to apply science to the world around us. Like I said, I don't agree, but his scientific method is spot on.
grey is just a metaphor for his idea's. Like dork-hole is a metaphor for me.
Yeah, the only guy I ever saw as good was a guy named OG. we was great also. I kind of clashed with him at first, it would be nice to talk to him again.
great job grey, even though I don't totally agree.
Qualia is a little soupy to me for now. I am more of a use what we know to describe what we don't know. For now, its more valid to have all beliefs linked back to the P.T.. We need all information exchanges, like god's miracles, to lead back to the PT. we know its incomplete, but its better than "individual experience only". to me.
our processor is based on the state changes, or information exchanges, within a certain volume of the universe. Change those exchanges and I change you. I changed how that volume of the universe will react to certain conditional changes.
red is no longer red anymore. its pink. real men wear pink.
Qualia requires subjectivity and subjectivity requires a subject. Gaylen wants us to believe that the subject is reality itself and we are just individual manifestations of it. That is no different than my view that reality is God and we are individual manifestations reproducing God's consciousness (subjectivity).
Qualia requires subjectivity and subjectivity requires a subject. Gaylen wants us to believe that the subject is reality itself and we are just individual manifestations of it. That is no different than my view that reality is God and we are individual manifestations reproducing God's consciousness (subjectivity).
Ok, so everything is “god.”
We were perfectly willing to call everything “everything” before, why call everything “god” now? Why do we need a brand new definition?
If one’s belief in god is so weak that one must resort to word games, maybe it’s time to admit one’s own skepticism.
Qualia requires subjectivity and subjectivity requires a subject. Gaylen wants us to believe that the subject is reality itself and we are just individual manifestations of it. That is no different than my view that reality is God and we are individual manifestations reproducing God's consciousness (subjectivity).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
Ok, so everything is “god.”
We were perfectly willing to call everything “everything” before, why call everything “god” now? Why do we need a brand new definition?
If one’s belief in god is so weak that one must resort to word games, maybe it’s time to admit one’s own skepticism.
Personally, I avoid use of the word 'God' when explaining my view because I think that, overall, the word is more deceptive than helpful. I might accept the term if I believed that Reality has a "God's-eye-view" of Existence, or if I thought that individual conscious experiences were functionally equivalent to the neurons of a Cosmic Brain, but I'm agnostic - mostly leaning toward non-believer - when it comes to those notions (for reasons I've tried to explain in numerous other posts). And if, perhaps, it happens to be true that either of those perspectives exists, then my best guess would be that this perspective was achieved via some highly advanced technology - i.e., advanced intelligent civilizations may have found a way to achieve a God's-eye view and/or a Cosmic Brain perspective, but I'm highly skeptical about "Divine Creator" views - especially if the ID is conceived as being a truly smart and all-loving Engineer/Artist. I'd be more likely to believe that "God" is an asymptotic journey of Reality, i.e., maybe "God" is a fractal-like evolutionary tendency toward endlessly-increasing Holism or knowledge or creative experiences or...? All just wild speculation.
Anyway, I think that subjectivity is fundamental and important in the "grand cosmic scheme of things" (so to speak), and I strongly suspect that the qualitative experience of "self"/"I"/"me" is a universal (probably in Aristotle's sense of the term 'universal' rather than Plato's). I'm not sure how many people really understand what I'm saying when I say that but, for what it's worth, there it is.
We were perfectly willing to call everything “everything” before, why call everything “god” now? Why do we need a brand new definition?
If one’s belief in god is so weak that one must resort to word games, maybe it’s time to admit one’s own skepticism.
There is no "brand new definition". That is just YOU resorting to word games. Cherry-picking and redacting the known, expert provided definition of "G-O-D"...and excising the parts that don't suit your biased preference.
The definition and meaning of the title "G-O-D" has never been limited to just Religious Deities and Mythological Characters. But, then, you knew that. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
The title "GOD" can accurately be assigned on a definitive basis to All That Exists (Everything).
Of course, you don't like that...because then a God Entity is substantiated to objectively exist. Unequivocally and irrefutably. And that renders Atheism (No God) null and void.
The title "GOD" can accurately be assigned on a definitive basis to All That Exists (Everything).
Of course, you don't like that...because then a God Entity is substantiated to objectively exist. Unequivocally and irrefutably. And that renders Atheism (No God) null and void.
You could say, however, that this would be an incredibly "shallow victory" for theists - merely defining 'God' in such a way that the concept becomes a tautology. For purposes of constructive discussion, I think the definition really needs to be narrowed down a bit by referencing intelligence, or at least consciousness, such that God is intelligent, or at least conscious. Personally, I am agnostic on the concept of the Totality, as such, being conscious (a "God's-eye" perspective) or on the concept of physical reality essentially constituting a Cosmic Mind (which I think is fairly close to Spinoza's view of "The Totality"="God). Any conception of God that does not somehow reference some higher-level sort of Cosmic Consciousness seems like a fairly pointless use of the word 'God.'
On these broad conceptions of "God" I don't think that true atheism (as a positive belief that there is no God) is a very good choice because I don't see a good basis for such a positive belief. Which is why I prefer agnosticism: Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I just don't know. On the other hand, when dealing with more traditional scripture-based conceptions of God, atheism (an assertion that there is no such thing) makes the most sense to me. BTW: An assertion of this sort does not require absolute certainty. Mere "high probability" is good enough. E.g., I don't have to be absolutely certain that Elvis is dead beyond any shred of possible doubt to say, with confidence, that "I believe Elvis is dead."
You could say, however, that this would be an incredibly "shallow victory" for theists - merely defining 'God' in such a way that the concept becomes a tautology. For purposes of constructive discussion, I think the definition really needs to be narrowed down a bit by referencing intelligence, or at least consciousness, such that God is intelligent, or at least conscious. Personally, I am agnostic on the concept of the Totality, as such, being conscious (a "God's-eye" perspective) or on the concept of physical reality essentially constituting a Cosmic Mind (which I think is fairly close to Spinoza's view of "The Totality"="God). Any conception of God that does not somehow reference some higher-level sort of Cosmic Consciousness seems like a fairly pointless use of the word 'God.'
On these broad conceptions of "God" I don't think that true atheism (as a positive belief that there is no God) is a very good choice because I don't see a good basis for such a positive belief. Which is why I prefer agnosticism: Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I just don't know. On the other hand, when dealing with more traditional scripture-based conceptions of God, atheism (an assertion that there is no such thing) makes the most sense to me. BTW: An assertion of this sort does not require absolute certainty. Mere "high probability" is good enough. E.g., I don't have to be absolutely certain that Elvis is dead beyond any shred of possible doubt to say, with confidence, that "I believe Elvis is dead."
I addressed this a bit back in this thread.
I don't see my Pantheism as a "shallow victory". It just is what it is.
You never really responded back at the beginning of last month when I gave a more detailed explanation of the position. http://www.city-data.com/forum/50915010-post2808.html
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.
I remember my first encounter with the works of Alfred North Whitehead as an exercise in reading comprehension that exceeded anything I had ever encountered before. Thanks for the cites.
