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.
That you do not understand the basic disconnect between the interpretation of sight and the actual stimuli involved is just one more bit of evidence that you lack sufficient understanding to discuss this intelligently.
As usual you offer nothing at all but claims that everyone else simply does not understand. I have yet to see you on a thread yet that does not have you simply railing on about peoples ignorance and biases. Evidence however you never offer.
I know what sight is thanks. I also know the thing you are looking at is not sight, but the thing sight is detecting. Such as a table.
I know what hearing is thanks. I also know the thing you are hearing is itself not hearing but the thing being detected. Like music.
God is the thing you are claiming to be detecting yet you have no evidence such a thing exists. Instead you simply invent a sense - which you claim can sense god - and act like this is QED that god must therefore exist. Yet the sense - like the god - also has no evidence supporting it's existence.
So in essence you are supporting the existence of something for which you have no evidence by reference to something for the existence of which you also have no evidence.
As usual you offer nothing at all but claims that everyone else simply does not understand. I have yet to see you on a thread yet that does not have you simply railing on about peoples ignorance and biases. Evidence however you never offer.
That you cannot even recognize evidence when it is presented says volumes. Pointing out the lack of understanding exhibited by someone in their posts is NOT "railing on."
Quote:
I know what sight is thanks. I also know the thing you are looking at is not sight, but the thing sight is detecting. Such as a table.
Clearly you do not realize that the table is an INTERPRETATION of the photon impacts.
Quote:
I know what hearing is thanks. I also know the thing you are hearing is itself not hearing but the thing being detected. Like music.
Clearly you do not realize that the music is an INTERPRETATION of the sound wave impacts.
Quote:
God is the thing you are claiming to be detecting yet you have no evidence such a thing exists. Instead you simply invent a sense - which you claim can sense god - and act like this is QED that god must therefore exist. Yet the sense - like the god - also has no evidence supporting it's existence.
Clearly you do not realize that the sense is an INTERPRETATION of existing energy fields around the brain . . . and there is evidence that this sense routinely produces INTERPRETATIONS of the presence of God when the fields are artificially produced. Therefore to assume it does not detect anything is irrational.
I know - as I said before - how sight and sound work. You are detecting objects or sounds by way of waves and photons. All that is clear. This is not what I am pointing out however so you are just deflecting by pointing out this obvious stuff.
What I am pointing out and have been pointing out since the first post despite you avoiding it is that - mechanisms aside of how sight and hearing actually work - there is a difference between the sense (sight and sound) and the thing being sensed (table, music).
Your god is the thing you are claiming to sense. It is not the sense itself. Calling this god the sense is like calling the table your eye or the music your ear. It is nonsensical.
What remains is you inventing something you have no evidence for - a god - and trying to support the existence of it by inventing a sense which you also have no evidence for which you then claim senses that god.
You had a feeling one day. You decided that feeling proved there is a god. So you invented a sense based on nothing and simply declare it is sensing that god - therefore there is a god. Circular arguments do not get much circular in my experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The usual procedure is to show that it contradicts my claims . . . not just claim it.
Well actually given your approach essentially was "I am not giving evidence go google it yourself" his reply which pretty much says "I am not giving counter evidence go google it yourself" is perfectly adequate. The "usual procedure" would be to directly cite your sources. Not hide behind "Go google it" when you can not find it yourself either. So that when they find your evidence actually does not exist you just get to claim their google skills must be lacking. So really you are about as far from the one who should be dictating "usual procedure" as it gets.
I know - as I said before - how sight and sound work. You are detecting objects or sounds by way of waves and photons. All that is clear. This is not what I am pointing out however so you are just deflecting by pointing out this obvious stuff.
NO it is NOT clear . . . you actually think the brain INTERPRETATIONS are something OTHER than interpretations of sensory information.
Quote:
What I am pointing out and have been pointing out since the first post despite you avoiding it is that - mechanisms aside of how sight and hearing actually work - there is a difference between the sense (sight and sound) and the thing being sensed (table, music).
You belabor an irrelevant point that has nothing to do with what is happening in the brain in response to external stimuli. It is ALL interpretation.
Quote:
Your god is the thing you are claiming to sense. It is not the sense itself.
I am claiming nothing. The experiments routinely produce this result. Are you not familiar with the experiments using EM fields where the subject's brain INTERPRETS these fields as the presence of GOD??? Just because the sensory information is EM fields . . . not photon or sound wave impacts . . . does not mean there is no sensing going on. Just because the EM fields are artificially produced does not mean the same sensing used does not respond to actual non-artificial fields.
Quote:
Calling this god the sense is like calling the table your eye or the music your ear. It is nonsensical.
Your lack of understanding of what is going on is what is nonsensical.
Quote:
What remains is you inventing something you have no evidence for - a god - and trying to support the existence of it by inventing a sense which you also have no evidence for which you then claim senses that god.
You had a feeling one day. You decided that feeling proved there is a god. So you invented a sense based on nothing and simply declare it is sensing that god - therefore there is a god. Circular arguments do not get much circular in my experience.
I invented nothing. I sensed God in deep meditation without any artificial stimuli. Cognitive neuroscientists have replicated this sensing by using artificial EM fields. You clearly are neither aware of nor understand these issues of brain interpretation of external stimuli.
Quote:
Well actually given your approach essentially was "I am not giving evidence go google it yourself" his reply which pretty much says "I am not giving counter evidence go google it yourself" is perfectly adequate. The "usual procedure" would be to directly cite your sources. Not hide behind "Go google it" when you can not find it yourself either. So that when they find your evidence actually does not exist you just get to claim their google skills must be lacking. So really you are about as far from the one who should be dictating "usual procedure" as it gets.
So says the man who repeatedly refuses to even read, let alone rigorously engage my presentations philosophically.
Not agreeing with you is not synonymous with not having read everything on the thread - or anything you have linked to in that thread so stop pretending it does. As I said if you refuse to present evidence and just tell a person to go google it themselves - we can strongly suspect you did not have the evidence to present in the first place - nor are you in a position to demand other people cite their counter evidence when you did not cite yours in the first place.
Again my point is entirely about the difference between a sense and the thing being sensed. You can deflect from this by going off topic to describing how the sense works - but my point therefore remains unaddressed. The thing you are looking at is seperate from the sense you are looking at it with. The thing you are hearing is seperate from that being heard.
If you want to claim there is a god then fine - present the evidence. If you want to claim there is a sense that can detect god then fine - present the evidence. If however you want to claim both and simply present each as evidence for the other - then you are presenting baseless circular arguments.
The usual procedure is to show that it contradicts my claims . . . not just claim it.
Is this intentional irony, or did you just get lucky? I gave you the same "proof" you gave me (i.e. look on Google), and you object that it's not a valid way of arguing. Thanks for proving my point for me.
Anyway, if you want to see how it contradicts your claims
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I suggest you Google solipsism or "brain in a vat" to get up to speed.
Not agreeing with you is not synonymous with not having read everything on the thread - or anything you have linked to in that thread so stop pretending it does. As I said if you refuse to present evidence and just tell a person to go google it themselves - we can strongly suspect you did not have the evidence to present in the first place - nor are you in a position to demand other people cite their counter evidence when you did not cite yours in the first place.
I am pretending nothing. You admitted not reading my presentations . . . yet you insist on critiquing them in that ignorance. So this hypocritical criticism of my not presenting things speaks for itself.
Quote:
Again my point is entirely about the difference between a sense and the thing being sensed. You can deflect from this by going off topic to describing how the sense works - but my point therefore remains unaddressed. The thing you are looking at is seperate from the sense you are looking at it with. The thing you are hearing is seperate from that being heard.
Your anti-God rant is the off topic irrelevant point because it is only an assumption on your part that the thing sensed does not exist. ALL "sensings" are brain interpretations of an otherwise inaccessible reality. The brain is the ONLY way we have of knowing what is real. The discovery of a sense that the brain directly detects without any specifically identified organs other than itself is what you seem not to get. But whether or not there are other organs involved in the sensing or the brain does it itself . . . it is ALL interpretation.
Quote:
If you want to claim there is a god then fine - present the evidence. If you want to claim there is a sense that can detect god then fine - present the evidence. If however you want to claim both and simply present each as evidence for the other - then you are presenting baseless circular arguments.
You are the one trying to make this only about the existence of God . . . and not about existing evidence that suggests that conclusion. I have presented the evidence that the brain consistently detects God when exposed to EM fields and it has been replicated repeatedly. Familiarize yourself with it . . . since you don't read my presentations anyway. That consistency of interpretation of fields suggests that the brain directly senses such fields as the presence of God. Why do you presume that such fields can only exist artificially? To me it is more than adequate evidence that my experiences are real . . . since no artificial stimuli were present.
I am pretending nothing. You admitted not reading my presentations
I have read the entire thread and the "synthesis" you linked to. Are you sure you are not loosing track and mistaken me for the user Morbert who you are also using this cop out claim on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
it is only an assumption on your part that the thing sensed does not exist.
Ah the old shift the burdeon of proof trick. Bit cliched. You are the one claiming there is a god entity so you are the one who has to evidence this claim. You claim to know anything about philosophy yet can not even get the onus of proof right.
Again: You claim there is a god. No evidence. You claim there is a sense for sensing god. No evidence. Yet you then use one to support the other. Circular argument.
I guess as usual the evidence from you is going to be "Go google it yourself" then is it?
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.
