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 will get no argument from me. I believe our Reality is alive. It is our living God.
ok, that notion is easily taught to; too. I mean we can point to things around us and teach to it easily. It empirical, its intuitive, and people can experience it as true.
It also has the "big three" is determining, or descerening, more valid claims. Those being explanation, mechanism, and predictions.
It effectively debunks the deny and shun everything atheist sects. It shows the regular atheist/theist that they are not totally wrong but they are just misunderstanding/misrepresenting some things. The fundy theist is in the same boat as the deny everything atheist sects to me. we can't overcome a literalist brain without electroshock treatment.
I know I am on a reasonable track because maddy, trans, and mort have to make up stuff, personally attack people, and/or run away from it. They use the word "semantics" like its an observation for anything but showing us a brain state.
so my question to you is "Why do you and gray keep playing around with notions that have such huges gaps?" A biosphere as life (or alive for the more emotional types) explains, offers a mechanism, and predicts, everything that you two have been discussing. why even go to a "field"? or even play with qualia? "life" does those things?
the same can be said of any and all and every subjective experience.
so then that means you would reject all your qualitative experience for the same reasons.
since it is void of any testable objective knowledge.
Unlike any other kind of knowledge, the "brute fact" qualitative nature of subjective experience is known directly with 100% certainty. This is the basis of all "objective" knowledge, so it is logically absurd to reject these aspects of subjective experience. I don't need objective confirmation to know whether or not I feel pain. But when we start interpreting the meanings of our experiences - e.g., when we start to make assumptions about what is "out there" independent of my present experience (or when I draw on memories of past experiences, etc.) - then we introduce some certain kinds of logical possibilities of error. We can still feel, FAPP, total confidence in some types of knowledge - e.g., when I believe that triangles exist independent of any particular thoughts that I have about them - but the further away you get from the "self-evident" types of knowledge, the more we can benefit from some sort of intersubjective reality checks.
People sometimes describe their experiences of God's presence as being a powerful "self-evident" type of feeling, and I personally take these testimonials somewhat seriously. I don't simply wave them off as lies, or utter delusions, etc., but I also don't take them at face value. Based on psychology and cognitive science, I know that people are capable of experiencing feelings of high confidence and strong intuitions about things that are simply not true by any reasonably objective standards. Cognitive errors happen. Intuitions sometimes go awry.
Most conceptions of God involve a great deal of interpretation of experience and judgments about what is or is not objectively real. This is where error can be introduced. And the more properties people assign to God, the more potential for error gets introduced. Take just one example: God is loving.
Consider some variations:
(1) I had an experience that I interpreted as God's love for me.
(2) I had an experience that I interpreted as God's love for humanity.
(3) I had an experience that I interpreted as meaning that God is love.
(4) God loves me.
(5) God loves the world.
(6) God is love.
In (1) there is very little room for error, especially if one is clear about the "I interpreted" part. I can't be wrong about the experience itself, nor can I be wrong about my feeling that I have interpreted the experience in this particular way. But within the interpretation there is some room for error concerning the nature of the one who is loving. As soon as you attribute some degree of objective existence to something beyond the qualitative character of your own, immediate, here-and-now experience, you could be wrong. And they ways in which you could be wrong get compounded by every attribute you believe God possesses. If, by the concept God, you have in mind a kindly old man with a beard surrounded by angles playing harps, etc., then there is a good chance that this particular being is not the being who is loving you. In a way, it is sorta like a case of mistaken identity. For a moment I might feel loved by my dog, and then realize it's not my dog. In this case we can suppose that you really were loved by a dog, but it just wasn't the particular dog that you thought it was, for a moment there. Also, of course, there is some "mind-reading" involved. I feel loved by God, but is my concept of love really the feeling that God has for me? Maybe what God really feels at that moment is great satisfaction at having just won a game of snooker, and you misinterpreted his mental state as being feeling of love for you.
In (2) we introduce the need for even more "mind reading." Maybe what you feel really is love for you but, when you extrapolate to "God loves everyone" you are compounding the possible errors.
Concerning (3), I suspect that, if pressed to be specific about what, exactly, that concept means, they might find that their concept is a bit vague, partly because the concept of love generally requires some untangling, and partly because the "is" of identity it tricky once you really start to think deeply about it. But I'll let all of that slide for now.
With (4) thru (6) we move into the socially dangerous territory of potentially forgetting that just because something feels true to me, it does not follow that it accurately describes the objective world. Saying "I interpret X as being Y" implicitly acknowledges some consciousness of the fact that I could be misinterpreting. Saying, flat out, "X is Y" could, for some people, just be a short-cut way of saying "I interpret X as being Y" but I have the feeling that some people forget the interpretive nature of most of their claims, and sometimes they seem utterly oblivious to the fact that they even could be wrong.
Overall, there are many conceptions of God, and most of these conceptions are highly complex and involve innumerable interpretations. I don't reject subjective qualitative information, and science doesn't really need to either. But science does not to find better ways to deal with it. Anyway, once we move conceptually beyond the immediate given-ness of experience and start interpreting experiences in terms of entities that are "out there" in some objective way, that is where science works really well.
As I see it, most conceptions of God and most interpretations of people's direct experiences relating to what they call God are valid subjects for scientific investigation, even now, even though we still have this problem with addressing subjective experience.
But you say:
...which is your version of asserting a counter-position. How is that not debate?
It seems to me that you have a negative view of "debate" and I do not. You are certainly correct to say that learning does not need to be (and basically should not be) an emotionally negative "battle", but I would say that "debate" isn't necessarily a "battle" in that sense. At its core, debate is like a friendly game of tennis. The ultimate goal is not to "beat your opponent" - that is, at most, just a transitory testing ground. The ultimate goal is to improve, and an excellent way to improve is to enter a testing ground - i.e., the area of "reality checks" and exchanges of ideas (to see if you can keep "getting the ball back over the net"). From my perspective, you are the one who keeps interpreting my "hitting the ball back" as being some sort negative thing. I don't see it that way. I'm just hitting the ball back to see how long I can keep successfully hitting the ball back. It's basically fun and games for me, but it also builds strength, endurance, and skill. (BTW: "Fun and games" doesn't imply a lack of underlying serious intent. I'm sincerely seeking the deepest truths available. This is simply one of my ways of doing it.)
But, yeah, I am highly motivated to keep hitting the ball back into your court to see what you can do with it. And, yeah, that's basically what "debate" is. But I don't see it in a negative light (although it can acquire negative energy if people turn it into personal attacks and ad hominem arguments - but none of us is perfect; sometimes we stray over that line).
debate is not an effective tool for "sincerely seeking the deepest truths available."
just like sarcasm and rhetoric are not effective tools for sincere communication.
My observation is that yes it is fun and games for you which is why your posts and views are not taken seriously. As you said previously they are no more than random jotting in your diary and not to be taken seriously. You may take the activity of "debate" seriously, but not the material and ideas and content of what is being discussed.
shallow is as shallow does.
that's what skating on the surface is.
fun and games.
You may take the activity of "debate" seriously, but not the material and ideas and content of what is being discussed.
I think it's just the opposite. "Debate", for me, is the fast and loose affair. My posts tend to be long because I'm trying to explain stuff that I do take seriously, and I want to be as clear as I can be (which requires anticipating possible objections, misunderstandings, subtle distinctions, etc., and trying to address them in the post, which greatly increases the length of a post). Also, I'm often trying to explain things that are challenging to understand or, even if they are not very hard to understand (like qualia), they are still notoriously hard to explain to people who want everything explained in simple, objective terms. If everything in science and philosophy were simple to understand and easy to explain, we probably wouldn't need science or philosophy at all, and no one would need to spend a lifetime studying them. A calculus formula, for example, is easy to understand, once you understand it; but getting to the point of understanding it can be a major challenge for many people.
I find it interesting how you can always find some way to focus on me - on my writing style, on my quirks and preferences, or on what you have (through mind-reading?) decided are my ulterior motives, and so on, and thus you manage to avoid grappling with the things I've actually said that might pose a challenge to your own views.
I think it's just the opposite. "Debate", for me, is the fast and loose affair. My posts tend to be long because I'm trying to explain stuff that I do take seriously, and I want to be as clear as I can be (which requires anticipating possible objections, misunderstandings, subtle distinctions, etc., and trying to address them in the post, which greatly increases the length of a post). Also, I'm often trying to explain things that are challenging to understand or, even if they are not very hard to understand (like qualia), they are still notoriously hard to explain to people who want everything explained in simple, objective terms. If everything in science and philosophy were simple to understand and easy to explain, we probably wouldn't need science or philosophy at all, and no one would need to spend a lifetime studying them. A calculus formula, for example, is easy to understand, once you understand it; but getting to the point of understanding it can be a major challenge for many people.
I find it interesting how you can always find some way to focus on me - on my writing style, on my quirks and preferences, or on what you have (through mind-reading?) decided are my ulterior motives, and so on, and thus you manage to avoid grappling with the things I've actually said that might pose a challenge to your own views.
because you (and others) so this is a generic you, not a personal you
altogether miss the point that there is a difference between endless yakking about ideas, and actually putting into practice and seeking to live by a set of principles, morals, and ethics. my observation is there is a primary focus and concern with pontificating and not so much with the practical application.
i believe you that you take your own ideas seriously. my observation is however that you do not take the ideas of others seriously, and that is why a consistent element in your posts is a lack of sincerity. Lots of sincerity in taking your own ideas seriously, oh so lofty and worthy of consideration. You do not extend that attitude to the ideas of others, and it comes through in your posts. Again that is not just you, there are others on here who also do that.
regarding "spending a lifetime studying" something, in the arena of religion and spirituality, study is pointless if the person is not living it in their daily life. that is the part you don't get. "studying" religion and spirituality is nothing if a person is not "living it."
but maybe an alternative to blind faith is offered here? maybe we can offer strength for a person to hold onto common sense, logic, and reason. believing in magic is not the only way to salvation. But that gaze at wide wonder at the knowledge they have found can be magical.
If i can get a person to believe a dude died, woke up, and flew way I have effectively removed their defences from snakes offering apples.
Here, read this book, and know all there is to know. err, wait a min, was that eat this apple ... ahh, same thing.
Unlike any other kind of knowledge, the "brute fact" qualitative nature of subjective experience is known directly with 100% certainty. This is the basis of all "objective" knowledge, so it is logically absurd to reject these aspects of subjective experience. I don't need objective confirmation to know whether or not I feel pain. But when we start interpreting the meanings of our experiences - e.g., when we start to make assumptions about what is "out there" independent of my present experience (or when I draw on memories of past experiences, etc.) - then we introduce some certain kinds of logical possibilities of error. We can still feel, FAPP, total confidence in some types of knowledge - e.g., when I believe that triangles exist independent of any particular thoughts that I have about them - but the further away you get from the "self-evident" types of knowledge, the more we can benefit from some sort of intersubjective reality checks.
People sometimes describe their experiences of God's presence as being a powerful "self-evident" type of feeling, and I personally take these testimonials somewhat seriously. I don't simply wave them off as lies, or utter delusions, etc., but I also don't take them at face value. Based on psychology and cognitive science, I know that people are capable of experiencing feelings of high confidence and strong intuitions about things that are simply not true by any reasonably objective standards. Cognitive errors happen. Intuitions sometimes go awry.
Most conceptions of God involve a great deal of interpretation of experience and judgments about what is or is not objectively real. This is where error can be introduced. And the more properties people assign to God, the more potential for error gets introduced. Take just one example: God is loving.
Consider some variations:
(1) I had an experience that I interpreted as God's love for me.
(2) I had an experience that I interpreted as God's love for humanity.
(3) I had an experience that I interpreted as meaning that God is love.
(4) God loves me.
(5) God loves the world.
(6) God is love.
In (1) there is very little room for error, especially if one is clear about the "I interpreted" part. I can't be wrong about the experience itself, nor can I be wrong about my feeling that I have interpreted the experience in this particular way. But within the interpretation there is some room for error concerning the nature of the one who is loving. As soon as you attribute some degree of objective existence to something beyond the qualitative character of your own, immediate, here-and-now experience, you could be wrong. And they ways in which you could be wrong get compounded by every attribute you believe God possesses. If, by the concept God, you have in mind a kindly old man with a beard surrounded by angles playing harps, etc., then there is a good chance that this particular being is not the being who is loving you. In a way, it is sorta like a case of mistaken identity. For a moment I might feel loved by my dog, and then realize it's not my dog. In this case we can suppose that you really were loved by a dog, but it just wasn't the particular dog that you thought it was, for a moment there. Also, of course, there is some "mind-reading" involved. I feel loved by God, but is my concept of love really the feeling that God has for me? Maybe what God really feels at that moment is great satisfaction at having just won a game of snooker, and you misinterpreted his mental state as being feeling of love for you.
In (2) we introduce the need for even more "mind reading." Maybe what you feel really is love for you but, when you extrapolate to "God loves everyone" you are compounding the possible errors.
Concerning (3), I suspect that, if pressed to be specific about what, exactly, that concept means, they might find that their concept is a bit vague, partly because the concept of love generally requires some untangling, and partly because the "is" of identity it tricky once you really start to think deeply about it. But I'll let all of that slide for now.
With (4) thru (6) we move into the socially dangerous territory of potentially forgetting that just because something feels true to me, it does not follow that it accurately describes the objective world. Saying "I interpret X as being Y" implicitly acknowledges some consciousness of the fact that I could be misinterpreting. Saying, flat out, "X is Y" could, for some people, just be a short-cut way of saying "I interpret X as being Y" but I have the feeling that some people forget the interpretive nature of most of their claims, and sometimes they seem utterly oblivious to the fact that they even could be wrong.
Overall, there are many conceptions of God, and most of these conceptions are highly complex and involve innumerable interpretations. I don't reject subjective qualitative information, and science doesn't really need to either. But science does not to find better ways to deal with it. Anyway, once we move conceptually beyond the immediate given-ness of experience and start interpreting experiences in terms of entities that are "out there" in some objective way, that is where science works really well.
As I see it, most conceptions of God and most interpretations of people's direct experiences relating to what they call God are valid subjects for scientific investigation, even now, even though we still have this problem with addressing subjective experience.
More excellent exposition, Gaylen. I think the most difficult concept I have to communicate and get others to at least consider rigorously is that the many possible states of consciousness are ontologically real. The "fleeting thoughts" and tendency to perceive as illusory the Self at the core of our consciousness seem to make such considerations virtually impossible for most people. To relate it to your exposition, I am, of course, alluding to the God IS love concept.
God IS a state of consciousness with very specific characteristics that we as reproducers of it must match. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that our other states of consciousness are equally real but play a different role in the grand scheme of God's existence. I see those other states as destined to be merely contributory to the Dark Matter that forms and maintains the galaxies within which those other states of consciousness are "reprocessed" so that God's desired consciousness is nurtured and birthed. Perhaps you can see more reasons why I was attracted to the Christian narrative besides the "mind of Christ's" match to the consciousness I encountered.
but maybe an alternative to blind faith is offered here? maybe we can offer strength for a person to hold onto common sense, logic, and reason. believing in magic is not the only way to salvation. But that gaze at wide wonder at the knowledge they have found can be magical.
If i can get a person to believe a dude died, woke up, and flew way I have effectively removed their defences from snakes offering apples.
Here, read this book, and know all there is to know. err, wait a min, was that eat this apple ... ahh, same thing.
again I am going to point out that faith and intellect go hand in hand.
it is not an either-or. it is a both.
just like science and religion are not either-or.
most people integrate both successfully in their lives.
that IS common sense, that IS reason, that IS logic.
it appears that there are people who have a problem doing that.
and they have a problem accepting and recognizing that most people do this.
easily. happily. successfully.
the lack of common sense, the lack of reason, the lack of logic, the lack of being anchored in boots on the ground practical reality, is to insist that it is "either-or" and not both.
again I am going to point out that faith and intellect go hand in hand.
it is not an either-or. it is a both.
just like science and religion are not either-or.
most people integrate both successfully in their lives.
that IS common sense, that IS reason, that IS logic.
it appears that there are people who have a problem doing that.
and they have a problem accepting and recognizing that most people do this.
easily. happily. successfully.
the lack of common sense, the lack of reason, the lack of logic, the lack of being anchored in boots on the ground practical reality, is to insist that it is "either-or" and not both.
well, I am INTJ. somedays E. So I totally agree. people are a mixture of a set of personality traits and intellect. I classify intellect as cleverness also.
But "blind faith" and "clever" don't go hand in hand. A clever person would not have "blind faith" but they may use it as a weapon if they need too. sometimes; for good.
...
Overall, there are many conceptions of God, and most of these conceptions are highly complex and involve innumerable interpretations. I don't reject subjective qualitative information, and science doesn't really need to either. But science does not to find better ways to deal with it. Anyway, once we move conceptually beyond the immediate given-ness of experience and start interpreting experiences in terms of entities that are "out there" in some objective way, that is where science works really well.
As I see it, most conceptions of God and most interpretations of people's direct experiences relating to what they call God are valid subjects for scientific investigation, even now, even though we still have this problem with addressing subjective experience.
and again this lacks logic and lacks rational thinking.
science does not validate subjective experiences. you recognize that.
and yet you now turn to it to interpret the very same qualitative experiences.
still with the same broken tool.
so now you're saying: oh, no measurement when you put grapes on the scale. there's something wrong with the grapes. so let's put oranges on the scale instead.
you flat out say science is problematic with addressing subjective experience, so let's use it to interpret subjective experience. to me that is utterly inane. you even say it in the same sentence! look at the last line of your post, you are basically saying "subjective experiences are valid subjects for science even though it is problematic for science to address subjective experience."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-21-2018 at 05:05 PM..
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.
