| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"bob young" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 10:16:09 PM |
| Object: |
Re: God is a ***** |
Kosta Atheos wrote:
It's one thing to be athiest, but what sort of person goes around saying
teh things you do? How can you be so absolutely certain that there isn't
a reality beyond what you're senses tell you, that you would figure you
had absolutely nothing to lose by speaking as you do. What do you gain
by it?
How do you know that your supreme being doesn't want him to say those things
exactly?
Are you this way in all walks of life? Gee, I hope not.
Why? How can you tell that's the bad thing to do? I heard no one can
possibly comprehend the ways of god, how can you?
Nut cases comprehend anything they decide they want to comprehend.
Sane people comprehend what is meaningful and at the same time tangeable
.
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
10 Apr 2004 11:41:57 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:40718755.6010207@sympatico.ca:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4070C8DA.5090306@sympatico.ca:
Tom wrote:
<...>
Science doesn't dispute creationism, it just says that it is wrong
:-).
It absolutely does no such thing Tom. The worst it says is, we don't
know.
Science says that we do know that the stories of Creation as found
in, for instance, the Bible are positively not true.
What
more is there to creationism Sheldon. other than to say 'godiddit".
How about why, how we know, and what we are to do about it?
That is religion, not specifically Creationism.
Not quite. It is posible to entertain thoughts on Creationism with
subscribing to any particular religion. There are many people who
consider themselve spiritual though not religious.
Yes, quite, once one entertains thoughts of "why, how we know and what
to do about it". And "spirituality" doesn't equate to Creationism
either.
I see, philosophy and science are religions.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
11 Apr 2004 08:58:06 AM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4078CC79.3ACC4AE7@worldnet.att.net...
Fred Stone wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:40718755.6010207@sympatico.ca:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4070C8DA.5090306@sympatico.ca:
Tom wrote:
<...>
Science doesn't dispute creationism, it just says that it is wrong
:-).
It absolutely does no such thing Tom. The worst it says is, we don't
know.
Science says that we do know that the stories of Creation as found
in, for instance, the Bible are positively not true.
What
more is there to creationism Sheldon. other than to say 'godiddit".
How about why, how we know, and what we are to do about it?
That is religion, not specifically Creationism.
Not quite. It is posible to entertain thoughts on Creationism with
subscribing to any particular religion. There are many people who
consider themselve spiritual though not religious.
Yes, quite, once one entertains thoughts of "why, how we know and what
to do about it". And "spirituality" doesn't equate to Creationism
either.
I see, philosophy and science are religions.
No, actually you don't see and that is the problem.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
11 Apr 2004 07:09:03 AM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:4078CC79.3ACC4AE7@worldnet.att.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:40718755.6010207@sympatico.ca:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4070C8DA.5090306@sympatico.ca:
Tom wrote:
<...>
Science doesn't dispute creationism, it just says that it is
wrong
:-).
It absolutely does no such thing Tom. The worst it says is, we
don't know.
Science says that we do know that the stories of Creation as found
in, for instance, the Bible are positively not true.
What
more is there to creationism Sheldon. other than to say
'godiddit".
How about why, how we know, and what we are to do about it?
That is religion, not specifically Creationism.
Not quite. It is posible to entertain thoughts on Creationism with
subscribing to any particular religion. There are many people who
consider themselve spiritual though not religious.
Yes, quite, once one entertains thoughts of "why, how we know and
what to do about it". And "spirituality" doesn't equate to
Creationism either.
I see, philosophy and science are religions.
You're an idiot.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
10 Apr 2004 11:42:15 PM |
|
|
Sheldon Liberman wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4070C8DA.5090306@sympatico.ca:
Tom wrote:
<...>
Science doesn't dispute creationism, it just says that it is wrong
:-).
It absolutely does no such thing Tom. The worst it says is, we don't
know.
Science says that we do know that the stories of Creation as found in,
for instance, the Bible are positively not true.
What
more is there to creationism Sheldon. other than to say 'godiddit".
How about why, how we know, and what we are to do about it?
That is religion, not specifically Creationism.
Not quite. It is posible to entertain thoughts on Creationism with
subscribing to any particular religion. There are many people who
consider themselve spiritual though not religious.
I follow no religion and do not consider myself spiritual. Still, I
believe Moses' God created all that is.
Where does that leave me?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
11 Apr 2004 08:59:24 AM |
|
|
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4078CC8D.67EB9B99@worldnet.att.net...
Sheldon Liberman wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4070C8DA.5090306@sympatico.ca:
Tom wrote:
<...>
Science doesn't dispute creationism, it just says that it is wrong
:-).
It absolutely does no such thing Tom. The worst it says is, we don't
know.
Science says that we do know that the stories of Creation as found in,
for instance, the Bible are positively not true.
What
more is there to creationism Sheldon. other than to say 'godiddit".
How about why, how we know, and what we are to do about it?
That is religion, not specifically Creationism.
Not quite. It is posible to entertain thoughts on Creationism with
subscribing to any particular religion. There are many people who
consider themselve spiritual though not religious.
I follow no religion and do not consider myself spiritual. Still, I
believe Moses' God created all that is.
Where does that leave me?
Up the creek without a paddle :-)?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
11 Apr 2004 07:09:24 AM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:4078CC8D.67EB9B99@worldnet.att.net:
Sheldon Liberman wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4070C8DA.5090306@sympatico.ca:
Tom wrote:
<...>
Science doesn't dispute creationism, it just says that it is wrong
:-).
It absolutely does no such thing Tom. The worst it says is, we
don't
know.
Science says that we do know that the stories of Creation as found
in,
for instance, the Bible are positively not true.
What
more is there to creationism Sheldon. other than to say
'godiddit".
How about why, how we know, and what we are to do about it?
That is religion, not specifically Creationism.
Not quite. It is posible to entertain thoughts on Creationism with
subscribing to any particular religion. There are many people who
consider themselve spiritual though not religious.
I follow no religion and do not consider myself spiritual. Still, I
believe Moses' God created all that is.
Where does that leave me?
Confused.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
05 Apr 2004 02:46:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 03:28:07 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4070C8DA.5090306@sympatico.ca:
Tom wrote:
<...>
Science doesn't dispute creationism, it just says that it is wrong
:-).
It absolutely does no such thing Tom. The worst it says is, we don't
know.
Science says that we do know that the stories of Creation as found in,
for instance, the Bible are positively not true.
What
more is there to creationism Sheldon. other than to say 'godiddit".
How about why, how we know, and what we are to do about it?
That is religion, not specifically Creationism.
Nor does religion in general provide any reason why it should be
believed.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
05 Apr 2004 02:46:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 18:53:43 -0400, Sheldon Liberman
<sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
snip
Just because physics is not unlimited doesn't mean that Goddidit.
Did I imply that was all there was to the case?
If not, what *did* you mean by your statement?
Simply that there is more to Creationism than the fact that science
can't dispute it.
There is nothing to creationism backed up by any data at all.
snip
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
04 Apr 2004 06:14:37 PM |
|
|
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:407091F7.6000508@sympatico.ca:
Fred Stone wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:40705871.6080802@sympatico.ca:
Fred Stone wrote:
<...>
Just because physics is not unlimited doesn't mean that Goddidit.
Did I imply that was all there was to the case?
If not, what *did* you mean by your statement?
Simply that there is more to Creationism than the fact that science
can't dispute it.
The only thing Creationism can do is to cry out "Goddidit" and *hope*
that science won't provide an explanation.
<...>
BTW, do you know how a bumble bee is able to fly? Science doesn't.
That's a very old, and very stupid, claim that never was true.
The science of aerodynamics *does* explain how a bumblebee can fly.
http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/WKA/technik/bumblebee.html
Thanks for the link. I'll have a read.
There's plenty more, just do a search on "bumblebee aerodynamics".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
02 Apr 2004 02:50:41 AM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2004 13:43:00 -0800, (Pat
Harrington) wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94BE565502D0fstone69@207.69.154.204>...
(Pat Harrington) wrote in
news:7517a083.0404010456.6023c939@posting.google.com:
snip
Sane people comprehend what is meaningful and at the same time
tangeable
Then, by that view, only the insane have emotions. They are not
tangible but are, nonetheless, real. Perhaps you don't have them?
That would make you sane? How does that make you feel?
So God is an emotion?
Sorry, I don't follow your deduction. Bob was discounting
anything not tangible and I merely pointed out something which most of
us share and comprehend as real but is not tangible in the least,
emotions.
Emotions are not things, but concepts, so the analogy between
believing in a god and believing in an emotion is not valid.
I wouodn't say God is an emotion but that god has emotions
as we do. In fact, he would have our emotions as we do.
That would mean that he has a physical body. It would also mean that
he changes.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Harrington" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
04 Apr 2004 05:27:24 AM |
|
|
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<m7aq609t6crarap0mfvoks4bkskehnrrn7@4ax.com>...
On 1 Apr 2004 13:43:00 -0800, (Pat
Harrington) wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94BE565502D0fstone69@207.69.154.204>...
(Pat Harrington) wrote in
news:7517a083.0404010456.6023c939@posting.google.com:
snip
Sane people comprehend what is meaningful and at the same time
tangeable
Then, by that view, only the insane have emotions. They are not
tangible but are, nonetheless, real. Perhaps you don't have them?
That would make you sane? How does that make you feel?
So God is an emotion?
Sorry, I don't follow your deduction. Bob was discounting
anything not tangible and I merely pointed out something which most of
us share and comprehend as real but is not tangible in the least,
emotions.
Emotions are not things, but concepts, so the analogy between
believing in a god and believing in an emotion is not valid.
But the "thing" that I accept as a God is very real. It is the
set of all energy. So, by my definition (I am aware that you were not
aware of it!), there is a basis for analogy. Only if you do not
accept that energy exists is there an argument.
I wouodn't say God is an emotion but that god has emotions
as we do. In fact, he would have our emotions as we do.
That would mean that he has a physical body. It would also mean that
he changes.
Body is a funny word but physicality certainly and it changes all
the time, every time we change or anything changes.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
04 Apr 2004 07:19:46 AM |
|
|
(Pat Harrington) wrote in
news:7517a083.0404040227.255bb24@posting.google.com:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<m7aq609t6crarap0mfvoks4bkskehnrrn7@4ax.com>...
On 1 Apr 2004 13:43:00 -0800, (Pat
Harrington) wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94BE565502D0fstone69@207.69.154.204>...
(Pat Harrington) wrote in
news:7517a083.0404010456.6023c939@posting.google.com:
snip
Sane people comprehend what is meaningful and at the same time
tangeable
Then, by that view, only the insane have emotions. They
are not
tangible but are, nonetheless, real. Perhaps you don't have
them? That would make you sane? How does that make you feel?
So God is an emotion?
Sorry, I don't follow your deduction. Bob was discounting
anything not tangible and I merely pointed out something which most
of us share and comprehend as real but is not tangible in the least,
emotions.
Emotions are not things, but concepts, so the analogy between
believing in a god and believing in an emotion is not valid.
But the "thing" that I accept as a God is very real. It is the
set of all energy. So, by my definition (I am aware that you were not
aware of it!), there is a basis for analogy. Only if you do not
accept that energy exists is there an argument.
That's like saying that God is my cat, therefore God exists. She agrees,
by the way.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Harrington" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
05 Apr 2004 04:18:56 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94C154BB070FDfstone69@207.69.154.204>...
(Pat Harrington) wrote in
news:7517a083.0404040227.255bb24@posting.google.com:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<m7aq609t6crarap0mfvoks4bkskehnrrn7@4ax.com>...
On 1 Apr 2004 13:43:00 -0800, (Pat
Harrington) wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94BE565502D0fstone69@207.69.154.204>...
(Pat Harrington) wrote in
news:7517a083.0404010456.6023c939@posting.google.com:
snip
Sane people comprehend what is meaningful and at the same time
tangeable
Then, by that view, only the insane have emotions. They
are not
tangible but are, nonetheless, real. Perhaps you don't have
them? That would make you sane? How does that make you feel?
So God is an emotion?
Sorry, I don't follow your deduction. Bob was discounting
anything not tangible and I merely pointed out something which most
of us share and comprehend as real but is not tangible in the least,
emotions.
Emotions are not things, but concepts, so the analogy between
believing in a god and believing in an emotion is not valid.
But the "thing" that I accept as a God is very real. It is the
set of all energy. So, by my definition (I am aware that you were not
aware of it!), there is a basis for analogy. Only if you do not
accept that energy exists is there an argument.
That's like saying that God is my cat, therefore God exists. She agrees,
by the way.
Only if you believe that your cat comprises all the energy that
exists, which would, of course, refute your own existence unless you
and your cat are siamese twins. Are you familiar with M-theory
cosmology? The proposition is where our 4D space-time is connected to
a 7D hyperfolded space known as Calibi-Yau space. It is my hypothesis
(and I understand fully that it is not proven, but then neither is
string theory or M-theory but they are also completely reasonable)
that one of the dimensions in Calabi-Yau space works as a reference
dimension. In other words, in that dimension, there is only one
spatial coordinate and all quanta or superstrings reference that
coordinate in that dimension. If this is the case, then all of
space-time is linked together via this reference and all quanta or
strings pivot around it. This hypothesis clears up the conundrum
posed by the EPR effect in which paired particles must somehow "know"
about each other. They would know as they have a physical reference
to each other and to every quantum/string in existence throughout all
time.
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that has the
property of consciousness or awareness. Some forms of energy are
constructed in a fashion that exhibits this property to various
extents. A plant uses chemical structures to remain aware of where a
UV-source is and turns towards it, for example. Animals exhibit
awareness/consciousness to various extents. I don't think most people
would have a problem with the fact that an amoeba is aware of a bit of
food and then engulfs it but it probably(!) doesn't muse about its own
existence. Thus there are levels of awareness/consciousness exhibited
by energy depending upon its form.
For the argument's sake, I will make the assumption that it is
correct for if it is not, the world is left unchanged. If this is the
case, then all of the energy in the universe is just one object tied
together through this reference. This means that there is only one
agent operating in this system. This agent is everywhere throughout
all time with respect to this system, therefore this agent is
omnipresent. Since this agent is the only agent/operator/doer in the
system, it is omnipotent, as it is capable of doing everything that is
done. Since this agent owns/has all of the consciousness and,
therefore, knows everything that is known, it is omniscient. This
object demonstrates omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience and,
therefore, fits the classical definition of God; so I call it God.
It formed all that you see out of itself by means of physics. It
is not a supernatural being, rather, it is completely natural.
Although there are many things that happen that we don't have
explanations for, there is ample room in this system for rational
answers to them all. We don't know what energy does in the Calabi-Yau
space and this could offer many possible field effects that could
explain fields of consciousness, abstract fields, astral fields,
ethereal fields and many other hypothesised planes of existence all
through completely rational physics.
So in this system, God is everything including all the emotions
we all feel. But it is not just an emotion. Now I don't expect you
to take this hypothesis as gospel but only accept that it is as
possible as modern string theory. It does afford, though, for a God
to do all the things God is supposed to have done and all by perfectly
rational means. Again, there is no supernatural nature to this God,
rather only that which is completely natural, although not all of it
is completely understood. It is a Monistic/Monotheistic system that
accounts for and easily accomodates the core tenets of Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism,
Confucianism and Australian aboriginal beliefs and probably many
others. It does demand a smidgen of faith though--you have to believe
that energy exists and that energy has awareness/consciousness as a
property.
Cheers,
Pat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim F." |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
05 Apr 2004 08:35:38 AM |
|
|
"Pat Harrington" <> wrote in message
news:7517a083.0404050118.3febaa08@posting.google.com...
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94C154BB070FDfstone69@207.69.154.204>...
(Pat Harrington) wrote in
news:7517a083.0404040227.255bb24@posting.google.com:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<m7aq609t6crarap0mfvoks4bkskehnrrn7@4ax.com>...
On 1 Apr 2004 13:43:00 -0800, (Pat
Harrington) wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94BE565502D0fstone69@207.69.154.204>...
(Pat Harrington) wrote in
news:7517a083.0404010456.6023c939@posting.google.com:
snip
Sane people comprehend what is meaningful and at the same time
tangeable
Then, by that view, only the insane have emotions. They
are not
tangible but are, nonetheless, real. Perhaps you don't have
them? That would make you sane? How does that make you feel?
So God is an emotion?
Sorry, I don't follow your deduction. Bob was discounting
anything not tangible and I merely pointed out something which most
of us share and comprehend as real but is not tangible in the least,
emotions.
Emotions are not things, but concepts, so the analogy between
believing in a god and believing in an emotion is not valid.
But the "thing" that I accept as a God is very real. It is the
set of all energy. So, by my definition (I am aware that you were not
aware of it!), there is a basis for analogy. Only if you do not
accept that energy exists is there an argument.
That's like saying that God is my cat, therefore God exists. She agrees,
by the way.
Only if you believe that your cat comprises all the energy that
exists, which would, of course, refute your own existence unless you
and your cat are siamese twins. Are you familiar with M-theory
cosmology? The proposition is where our 4D space-time is connected to
a 7D hyperfolded space known as Calibi-Yau space. It is my hypothesis
(and I understand fully that it is not proven, but then neither is
string theory or M-theory but they are also completely reasonable)
that one of the dimensions in Calabi-Yau space works as a reference
dimension. In other words, in that dimension, there is only one
spatial coordinate and all quanta or superstrings reference that
coordinate in that dimension. If this is the case, then all of
space-time is linked together via this reference and all quanta or
strings pivot around it. This hypothesis clears up the conundrum
posed by the EPR effect in which paired particles must somehow "know"
about each other. They would know as they have a physical reference
to each other and to every quantum/string in existence throughout all
time.
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that has the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What do
you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does one
distinguish entities that possess this property from those
that do not? It seems to me that when posits as expansive
a conception of consciousness as you appear to be doing
here, then one is left with no basis for distinguishing conscious
entities from those that lack consciousness. If everything is
conscious, then the term loses any distinct meaning.
Some forms of energy are
constructed in a fashion that exhibits this property to various
extents. A plant uses chemical structures to remain aware of where a
UV-source is and turns towards it, for example. Animals exhibit
awareness/consciousness to various extents. I don't think most people
would have a problem with the fact that an amoeba is aware of a bit of
food and then engulfs it but it probably(!) doesn't muse about its own
existence. Thus there are levels of awareness/consciousness exhibited
by energy depending upon its form.
OK, if you are going to distinguish between different levels of
consciousness, then what are your criteria for doing so? If,
as you appear to be doing, arguing that everything is conscious
in one sense or another, then you at least must make distinctions
between the kinds of consciousness that a an amoeba manifests
as opposed to those manifested by a plant, as compared to the
consciousness manifested by, say an insect, as distinguished from
the consiousness of a dog. And all the kinds of consciousness that
might be manifested by all these "lower forms" must still be distinguished
from human consciousness. However, even supposing that you have
done this, it still seems quite a leap to the conclusion that you wish
to draw, which is the assertion that the universe itself (i.e. the totality
of everything that exists) can be described as being a conscious
entity. I would contend that you are among other things engaging
in the fallacy of composition, that is because members of a set
might be described as possessing a certain property, that you
are then illicitly concluding that the set, itself, possesses that
property as well. From the fact the universe includes entities
that are conscious, one cannot derive the conclusion that the
universe, itself, is a conscious entity, or even the conclusion
that it would make sense to attribute to the universe as a whole
the property of consciousness.
For the argument's sake, I will make the assumption that it is
correct for if it is not, the world is left unchanged. If this is the
case, then all of the energy in the universe is just one object tied
together through this reference.
In terms of the kind of case that you appear to be making here,
this appears to be a problematic move. While it is true that
cosmologists might well choose to treat the universe (by which
they mean the totality of things within our space-time continuum,
as opposed to the totality of all existing things, which could conceivably
include other possible space-time continuums) as a single entity.
They do this as a simplifying assumption, so they can then set
down some equations, from whose solutions they hope to derive
some empirically testable hypotheses. Within the context of what
they are trying to do, this is a perfectly legitimate procedure,
just as if I was studying the motion of a ball through space, I
might choose to make the simplifying assumption, that the
friction the ball might experience moving through the air is
so small that it might be safely neglected in my analysis. That
does not mean, however, that the ball does not experience friction
when moving through the air. Likewise, when cosmologists choose
to treat the universe as if it was a single entity, it does not follow
that the universe does not in fact comprise multitudes of different
objects and entitities, only that for the sake of what they are
attempting to do, there is no reason for them to take that
into account.
This means that there is only one
agent operating in this system. This agent is everywhere throughout
all time with respect to this system, therefore this agent is
omnipresent. Since this agent is the only agent/operator/doer in the
system, it is omnipotent, as it is capable of doing everything that is
done. Since this agent owns/has all of the consciousness and,
therefore, knows everything that is known, it is omniscient. This
object demonstrates omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience and,
therefore, fits the classical definition of God; so I call it God.
I think your conceptions of omnipotence and omniscience are a
bit idiosyncratic. When most theologians use those terms,
they seem to mean by omnipotence, having the power to
do anything at all, that does not involve logical contradictions.
And by omnscience, possessing all the knowledge that can
logically exist. In the case of omniscience, even supposing that
it made sense to describe the universe, itself, as an entitity,
to which one can attribute the property of having knowledge,
it still would not follow that the universe, itself, could possess,
all possible knowledge, unless one assumes that within the
universe, all logically possibly occurences are instantiated,
and that there exists conscious being that know of all of
logically possible events and occurences.
Similarly, even if we assume that it would make sense to
attribute to the universe the possibility of it being omnipotent,
it would not follow that it is. Does the universe, in your
opinion, have the power of arbritrarily suspending the
laws of thermodynamics for instance? If it doesn't, then
in what sense could it be described as being omnipotent?
It formed all that you see out of itself by means of physics. It
is not a supernatural being, rather, it is completely natural.
Although there are many things that happen that we don't have
explanations for, there is ample room in this system for rational
answers to them all. We don't know what energy does in the Calabi-Yau
space and this could offer many possible field effects that could
explain fields of consciousness, abstract fields, astral fields,
ethereal fields and many other hypothesised planes of existence all
through completely rational physics.
So in this system, God is everything including all the emotions
we all feel. But it is not just an emotion. Now I don't expect you
to take this hypothesis as gospel but only accept that it is as
possible as modern string theory. It does afford, though, for a God
to do all the things God is supposed to have done and all by perfectly
rational means. Again, there is no supernatural nature to this God,
rather only that which is completely natural, although not all of it
is completely understood. It is a Monistic/Monotheistic system that
accounts for and easily accomodates the core tenets of Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism,
Confucianism and Australian aboriginal beliefs and probably many
others. It does demand a smidgen of faith though--you have to believe
that energy exists and that energy has awareness/consciousness as a
property.
Cheers,
Pat
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPL Verhey" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 04:17:56 AM |
|
|
"Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4rnb8$2lof18$1@ID-155290.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
.....
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that has the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What do
you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does one
distinguish entities that possess this property from those
that do not?
The only criteririon seems to be that to be conscious, the entity must have
the ability within him/her/itself to assess being conscious, to be able to
tell yourself "I am conscious" (it's a bit hard to assess anything when
one is asleep, not concious)
This makes "1st person" consciousness only known the experiencing
individual, and is therefor inaccessible to any scientftic "3rd person"
observation. We can all "observe the moon", but not each other's
consciousness. What this means..?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 07:11:57 AM |
|
|
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:407274ec$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4rnb8$2lof18$1@ID-155290.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
....
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that has the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What do
you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does one
distinguish entities that possess this property from those
that do not?
The only criteririon seems to be that to be conscious, the entity must
have the ability within him/her/itself to assess being conscious, to
be able to tell yourself "I am conscious" (it's a bit hard to assess
anything when one is asleep, not concious)
That's self-awareness.
This makes "1st person" consciousness only known the experiencing
individual, and is therefor inaccessible to any scientftic "3rd
person" observation. We can all "observe the moon", but not each
other's consciousness. What this means..?
Is that "self-awareness" is subjective, but accessible through
interviews of subjects, as long as it's kept in *mind* that your talking
about an internal mental state and not something objective.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPL Verhey" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 10:33:29 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C35367E9BA5fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:407274ec$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4rnb8$2lof18$1@ID-155290.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
....
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that has the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What do
you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does one
distinguish entities that possess this property from those
that do not?
The only criteririon seems to be that to be conscious, the entity must
have the ability within him/her/itself to assess being conscious, to
be able to tell yourself "I am conscious" (it's a bit hard to assess
anything when one is asleep, not concious)
That's self-awareness.
This makes "1st person" consciousness only known the experiencing
individual, and is therefor inaccessible to any scientftic "3rd
person" observation. We can all "observe the moon", but not each
other's consciousness. What this means..?
Is that "self-awareness" is subjective, but accessible through
interviews of subjects, as long as it's kept in *mind* that your talking
about an internal mental state and not something objective.
Does this mean that if an observable biochemical clog called a human
body-brain can have "an internal mental state".. all "observable stuff" has
to some degree "an internal mental state"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 10:59:19 AM |
|
|
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:4072ccee$0$41754$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C35367E9BA5fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:407274ec$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4rnb8$2lof18$1@ID-155290.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
....
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that has
the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What do
you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does one
distinguish entities that possess this property from those
that do not?
The only criteririon seems to be that to be conscious, the entity
must have the ability within him/her/itself to assess being
conscious, to be able to tell yourself "I am conscious" (it's a
bit hard to assess anything when one is asleep, not concious)
That's self-awareness.
This makes "1st person" consciousness only known the experiencing
individual, and is therefor inaccessible to any scientftic "3rd
person" observation. We can all "observe the moon", but not each
other's consciousness. What this means..?
Is that "self-awareness" is subjective, but accessible through
interviews of subjects, as long as it's kept in *mind* that your
talking about an internal mental state and not something objective.
Does this mean that if an observable biochemical clog called a human
body-brain can have "an internal mental state".. all "observable
stuff" has to some degree "an internal mental state"?
No.
"Observable stuff" may induce an internal mental state in an observer
through the process of observation: sensation, perception and cognition.
In the case of self-awareness the "observable stuff" is the behavior of
the subject.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPL Verhey" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 05:25:41 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C379F6210F9fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:4072ccee$0$41754$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C35367E9BA5fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:407274ec$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4rnb8$2lof18$1@ID-155290.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in message
....
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that has
the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What do
you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does one
distinguish entities that possess this property from those
that do not?
The only criteririon seems to be that to be conscious, the entity
must have the ability within him/her/itself to assess being
conscious, to be able to tell yourself "I am conscious" (it's a
bit hard to assess anything when one is asleep, not concious)
That's self-awareness.
This makes "1st person" consciousness only known the experiencing
individual, and is therefor inaccessible to any scientftic "3rd
person" observation. We can all "observe the moon", but not each
other's consciousness. What this means..?
Is that "self-awareness" is subjective, but accessible through
interviews of subjects, as long as it's kept in *mind* that your
talking about an internal mental state and not something objective.
Does this mean that if an observable biochemical clog called a human
body-brain can have "an internal mental state".. all "observable
stuff" has to some degree "an internal mental state"?
No.
"Observable stuff" may induce an internal mental state in an observer
through the process of observation: sensation, perception and cognition.
But if this internal mental state does not reside in the set of "observable
stuff" i.e. the kinda stuff science works with, then as far as science is
concerned such an internal state does not exist. Or at least, that internal
mental state cannot be understood or explained in the framework of any
observable stuff.
The "correlation" between observable stuff and internal mental states
although it exists, is not causal and probably not even real. I think its
rather a mirage, an optical delusion. Obviously, when you would try to look
into your brain hoping to find yourself (the "observer") there.. you end up
running after your own tail. That is usually what most philosophy and
science on consciousness is doing IMO.
In the case of self-awareness the "observable stuff" is the behavior of
the subject.
Yes, when I see you behave and recognise you as a fellow human being, I
definately conclude from the observable stuff that you probably have an
internal state quite similar to my own. I even suspect this to be the case
writing and reading emails in this NG. :) But I'm not as sure of that, as I
am of the moon.. and other stuff we all have access to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
06 Apr 2004 06:48:48 PM |
|
|
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:40732d86$0$41746$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C379F6210F9fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:4072ccee$0$41754$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C35367E9BA5fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:407274ec$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4rnb8$2lof18$1@ID-155290.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
....
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that has
the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What do
you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does one
distinguish entities that possess this property from those
that do not?
The only criteririon seems to be that to be conscious, the
entity must have the ability within him/her/itself to assess
being conscious, to be able to tell yourself "I am conscious"
(it's a bit hard to assess anything when one is asleep, not
concious)
That's self-awareness.
This makes "1st person" consciousness only known the
experiencing individual, and is therefor inaccessible to any
scientftic "3rd person" observation. We can all "observe the
moon", but not each other's consciousness. What this means..?
Is that "self-awareness" is subjective, but accessible through
interviews of subjects, as long as it's kept in *mind* that your
talking about an internal mental state and not something
objective.
Does this mean that if an observable biochemical clog called a
human body-brain can have "an internal mental state".. all
"observable stuff" has to some degree "an internal mental state"?
No.
"Observable stuff" may induce an internal mental state in an observer
through the process of observation: sensation, perception and
cognition.
But if this internal mental state does not reside in the set of
"observable stuff" i.e. the kinda stuff science works with, then as
far as science is concerned such an internal state does not exist.
We are becoming increasingly able to observe the internal mental states
of patients. PET scanners still don't have enough resolution to pinpoint
single neurons, but they *can* be used to give a gross "prediction" of
what a patient is thinking or perceiving.
Or
at least, that internal mental state cannot be understood or explained
in the framework of any observable stuff.
You just answered your own comment, below.
The "correlation" between observable stuff and internal mental states
although it exists, is not causal and probably not even real.
Nonsense. It's ridiculous to deny that internal mental states are
causally connected to external behavior and/or sensory perception.
Anyone who takes medication for depression can tell you that from
personal experience.
I think
its rather a mirage, an optical delusion. Obviously, when you would
try to look into your brain hoping to find yourself (the "observer")
there.. you end up running after your own tail. That is usually what
most philosophy and science on consciousness is doing IMO.
Fortunately, your opinion isn't being consulted by the ones doing the
research on consciousness.
In the case of self-awareness the "observable stuff" is the behavior
of the subject.
Yes, when I see you behave and recognise you as a fellow human being,
I definately conclude from the observable stuff that you probably have
an internal state quite similar to my own. I even suspect this to be
the case writing and reading emails in this NG. :) But I'm not as sure
of that, as I am of the moon.. and other stuff we all have access to.
That's why it's called a "subjective" or "internal" mental state.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPL Verhey" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
07 Apr 2004 03:28:45 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C3C99113BA4fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:40732d86$0$41746$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C379F6210F9fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:4072ccee$0$41754$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C35367E9BA5fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:407274ec$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4rnb8$2lof18$1@ID-155290.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
....
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that has
the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What do
you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does one
distinguish entities that possess this property from those
that do not?
The only criteririon seems to be that to be conscious, the
entity must have the ability within him/her/itself to assess
being conscious, to be able to tell yourself "I am conscious"
(it's a bit hard to assess anything when one is asleep, not
concious)
That's self-awareness.
This makes "1st person" consciousness only known the
experiencing individual, and is therefor inaccessible to any
scientftic "3rd person" observation. We can all "observe the
moon", but not each other's consciousness. What this means..?
Is that "self-awareness" is subjective, but accessible through
interviews of subjects, as long as it's kept in *mind* that your
talking about an internal mental state and not something
objective.
Does this mean that if an observable biochemical clog called a
human body-brain can have "an internal mental state".. all
"observable stuff" has to some degree "an internal mental state"?
No.
"Observable stuff" may induce an internal mental state in an observer
through the process of observation: sensation, perception and
cognition.
But if this internal mental state does not reside in the set of
"observable stuff" i.e. the kinda stuff science works with, then as
far as science is concerned such an internal state does not exist.
We are becoming increasingly able to observe the internal mental states
of patients. PET scanners still don't have enough resolution to pinpoint
single neurons, but they *can* be used to give a gross "prediction" of
what a patient is thinking or perceiving.
No. *Correlations* are observed, not the internal mental state itself. I'm
not sure you have understood the difference. Maybe you are a zombie that
does not know directly of any internal mental state?
Or
at least, that internal mental state cannot be understood or explained
in the framework of any observable stuff.
You just answered your own comment, below.
Which you haven't grasped yet, so it seems.
The "correlation" between observable stuff and internal mental states
although it exists, is not causal and probably not even real.
Nonsense. It's ridiculous to deny that internal mental states are
causally connected to external behavior and/or sensory perception.
You have it wrong. They are CORRELATED , fully indeed, but cannot said to be
"causally connected". I explained to you why that is the case: internal
mental states are not observables to science. Thats why you will not find
anything "internal" in any scientific equation where *observables* equate
with each other.
Anyone who takes medication for depression can tell you that from
personal experience.
I think
its rather a mirage, an optical delusion. Obviously, when you would
try to look into your brain hoping to find yourself (the "observer")
there.. you end up running after your own tail. That is usually what
most philosophy and science on consciousness is doing IMO.
Fortunately, your opinion isn't being consulted by the ones doing the
research on consciousness.
In the case of self-awareness the "observable stuff" is the behavior
of the subject.
Yes, when I see you behave and recognise you as a fellow human being,
I definately conclude from the observable stuff that you probably have
an internal state quite similar to my own. I even suspect this to be
the case writing and reading emails in this NG. :) But I'm not as sure
of that, as I am of the moon.. and other stuff we all have access to.
That's why it's called a "subjective" or "internal" mental state.
Sure... so why are so many scientists, also the greatest ones, kinda baffled
by the question of "consciousness", "internal mental states", "subjective
experience" whatever you call it... as it seems to escape the scientific
eye? It's a pity they didn't consult you before, right?
At least you could show you understand the conundrum.. before you decide its
all as simple as you claim it is. You haven't shown that so far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
07 Apr 2004 07:26:02 AM |
|
|
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:4073badc$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C3C99113BA4fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:40732d86$0$41746$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C379F6210F9fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:4072ccee$0$41754$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C35367E9BA5fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:407274ec$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4rnb8$2lof18$1@ID-155290.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
....
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that
has the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What do
you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does one
distinguish entities that possess this property from those
that do not?
The only criteririon seems to be that to be conscious, the
entity must have the ability within him/her/itself to assess
being conscious, to be able to tell yourself "I am
conscious" (it's a bit hard to assess anything when one is
asleep, not concious)
That's self-awareness.
This makes "1st person" consciousness only known the
experiencing individual, and is therefor inaccessible to any
scientftic "3rd person" observation. We can all "observe the
moon", but not each other's consciousness. What this means..?
Is that "self-awareness" is subjective, but accessible through
interviews of subjects, as long as it's kept in *mind* that
your talking about an internal mental state and not something
objective.
Does this mean that if an observable biochemical clog called a
human body-brain can have "an internal mental state".. all
"observable stuff" has to some degree "an internal mental
state"?
No.
"Observable stuff" may induce an internal mental state in an
observer through the process of observation: sensation, perception
and cognition.
But if this internal mental state does not reside in the set of
"observable stuff" i.e. the kinda stuff science works with, then as
far as science is concerned such an internal state does not exist.
We are becoming increasingly able to observe the internal mental
states of patients. PET scanners still don't have enough resolution
to pinpoint single neurons, but they *can* be used to give a gross
"prediction" of what a patient is thinking or perceiving.
No. *Correlations* are observed, not the internal mental state
itself. I'm not sure you have understood the difference.
I understand it just fine. You're taking "correlation is not causation"
to an illogical conclusion. Perhaps you haven't heard of the "factors of
causation" or much of the latest research on chimpanzee motivation and
behavior?
Maybe you are
a zombie that does not know directly of any internal mental state?
Maybe you're stuck in old-style strict behaviorism?
Or
at least, that internal mental state cannot be understood or
explained in the framework of any observable stuff.
You just answered your own comment, below.
Which you haven't grasped yet, so it seems.
The "correlation" between observable stuff and internal mental
states although it exists, is not causal and probably not even
real.
Nonsense. It's ridiculous to deny that internal mental states are
causally connected to external behavior and/or sensory perception.
You have it wrong. They are CORRELATED , fully indeed, but cannot said
to be "causally connected". I explained to you why that is the case:
internal mental states are not observables to science. Thats why you
will not find anything "internal" in any scientific equation where
*observables* equate with each other.
Lots of researchers would disagree with you.
Anyone who takes medication for depression can tell you that from
personal experience.
I think
its rather a mirage, an optical delusion. Obviously, when you would
try to look into your brain hoping to find yourself (the
"observer") there.. you end up running after your own tail. That is
usually what most philosophy and science on consciousness is doing
IMO.
Fortunately, your opinion isn't being consulted by the ones doing the
research on consciousness.
In the case of self-awareness the "observable stuff" is the
behavior of the subject.
Yes, when I see you behave and recognise you as a fellow human
being, I definately conclude from the observable stuff that you
probably have an internal state quite similar to my own. I even
suspect this to be the case writing and reading emails in this NG.
:) But I'm not as sure of that, as I am of the moon.. and other
stuff we all have access to.
That's why it's called a "subjective" or "internal" mental state.
Sure... so why are so many scientists, also the greatest ones, kinda
baffled by the question of "consciousness", "internal mental states",
"subjective experience" whatever you call it... as it seems to escape
the scientific eye?
"The scientific eye" is becoming aware of the facts of consciousness.
Put down your Zen manuals and read some Dennett or better yet, some
neuropsychology.
It's a pity they didn't consult you before, right?
I've been consulting *them*. Maybe you should put away those antiquated
behaviorists and read the *latest* research papers on the subject. I'm
sure you can find it if you try.
At least you could show you understand the conundrum.. before you
decide its all as simple as you claim it is. You haven't shown that so
far.
There is no conundrum.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPL Verhey" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
07 Apr 2004 08:53:05 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C455CAF1372fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:4073badc$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C3C99113BA4fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:40732d86$0$41746$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C379F6210F9fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:4072ccee$0$41754$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C35367E9BA5fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:407274ec$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4rnb8$2lof18$1@ID-155290.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
....
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy that
has the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What do
you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does one
distinguish entities that possess this property from those
that do not?
The only criteririon seems to be that to be conscious, the
entity must have the ability within him/her/itself to assess
being conscious, to be able to tell yourself "I am
conscious" (it's a bit hard to assess anything when one is
asleep, not concious)
That's self-awareness.
This makes "1st person" consciousness only known the
experiencing individual, and is therefor inaccessible to any
scientftic "3rd person" observation. We can all "observe the
moon", but not each other's consciousness. What this means..?
Is that "self-awareness" is subjective, but accessible through
interviews of subjects, as long as it's kept in *mind* that
your talking about an internal mental state and not something
objective.
Does this mean that if an observable biochemical clog called a
human body-brain can have "an internal mental state".. all
"observable stuff" has to some degree "an internal mental
state"?
No.
"Observable stuff" may induce an internal mental state in an
observer through the process of observation: sensation, perception
and cognition.
But if this internal mental state does not reside in the set of
"observable stuff" i.e. the kinda stuff science works with, then as
far as science is concerned such an internal state does not exist.
We are becoming increasingly able to observe the internal mental
states of patients. PET scanners still don't have enough resolution
to pinpoint single neurons, but they *can* be used to give a gross
"prediction" of what a patient is thinking or perceiving.
No. *Correlations* are observed, not the internal mental state
itself. I'm not sure you have understood the difference.
I understand it just fine. You're taking "correlation is not causation"
to an illogical conclusion.
What conclusion? All I am doing is explaining/repeating why scienists, those
of great name included, feel that "consciousness" somewhow escapes
scientific explanation. According to all our scientific knowledge there is
no reason why an observed biochemical clog customarily called a human being
should have any "internal mental state" to begin with. It would make more
sense if we all were very complex biochemical self-learning robots
interacting with our environment and without any "internal mental state". We
might as well, or even better, be zombies.
For the moment I have no other conclusions than that maybe we don't really
understand each others points yet. But I can say I'm not into any mystic
hoghwash, nor do I think we need "quantum weirdness" to explain something we
think of as "weird" i.e. conscious experience. The only thinkable and valid
research on conscious experience are already taking place in biophysics,
neuroscience, linguistics, psychology etc etc. No need for a magic quantum
or other rabbit out of a magic hat to explain consciousness.
Perhaps you haven't heard of the "factors of
causation" or much of the latest research on chimpanzee motivation and
behavior?
Maybe you are
a zombie that does not know directly of any internal mental state?
Maybe you're stuck in old-style strict behaviorism?
Hardly.
Or
at least, that internal mental state cannot be understood or
explained in the framework of any observable stuff.
You just answered your own comment, below.
Which you haven't grasped yet, so it seems.
The "correlation" between observable stuff and internal mental
states although it exists, is not causal and probably not even
real.
Nonsense. It's ridiculous to deny that internal mental states are
causally connected to external behavior and/or sensory perception.
You have it wrong. They are CORRELATED , fully indeed, but cannot said
to be "causally connected". I explained to you why that is the case:
internal mental states are not observables to science. Thats why you
will not find anything "internal" in any scientific equation where
*observables* equate with each other.
Lots of researchers would disagree with you.
Of course there is a 100% correlation between "what the brain does" and
"internal mental states". The point is there no two speperate entities here
that "relate" in any way other than that they are a useful epistemological
distinction. The mind is what the brain does (or brain what the mind does).
Indeed then, "what the brain does" correlates with "what the brain does" but
only in the spatio-temporal sense as any process at t1 followed by t2.
I believe it can be made intelligible, using classical and solid science
without magic, why it *appears* as-if there there is a "mind" (internal
mental state) seperate from "matter" (observables). Why we feel as sort of a
"ghost in a machine".
I've tried Dennett some years ago, but to my taste he is ranting too much
and not really hitting fast enough.
Anyone who takes medication for depression can tell you that from
personal experience.
I think
its rather a mirage, an optical delusion. Obviously, when you would
try to look into your brain hoping to find yourself (the
"observer") there.. you end up running after your own tail. That is
usually what most philosophy and science on consciousness is doing
IMO.
Fortunately, your opinion isn't being consulted by the ones doing the
research on consciousness.
In the case of self-awareness the "observable stuff" is the
behavior of the subject.
Yes, when I see you behave and recognise you as a fellow human
being, I definately conclude from the observable stuff that you
probably have an internal state quite similar to my own. I even
suspect this to be the case writing and reading emails in this NG.
:) But I'm not as sure of that, as I am of the moon.. and other
stuff we all have access to.
That's why it's called a "subjective" or "internal" mental state.
Sure... so why are so many scientists, also the greatest ones, kinda
baffled by the question of "consciousness", "internal mental states",
"subjective experience" whatever you call it... as it seems to escape
the scientific eye?
"The scientific eye" is becoming aware of the facts of consciousness.
Put down your Zen manuals and read some Dennett or better yet, some
neuropsychology.
It's a pity they didn't consult you before, right?
I've been consulting *them*. Maybe you should put away those antiquated
behaviorists and read the *latest* research papers on the subject. I'm
sure you can find it if you try.
At least you could show you understand the conundrum.. before you
decide its all as simple as you claim it is. You haven't shown that so
far.
There is no conundrum.
I agree. But now tell me why you think there isn't?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: God is a ***** |
07 Apr 2004 09:45:40 AM |
|
|
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:407406de$0$41754$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C455CAF1372fstone69@207.69.154.202...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:4073badc$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C3C99113BA4fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:40732d86$0$41746$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C379F6210F9fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:4072ccee$0$41754$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C35367E9BA5fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"JPL Verhey" <petervar@12move.nl> wrote in
news:407274ec$0$41764$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl:
"Jim F." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c4rnb8$2lof18$1@ID-155290.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Pat Harrington" <PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com> wrote
in message
....
It is also a "belief" of mine that it is energy
that has the
property of consciousness or awareness.
I find that assertion to be somewhat problematic. What
do you mean by "consciousness"? By what criteria does
one distinguish entities that possess this property from
those that do not?
The only criteririon seems to be that to be conscious, the
entity must have the ability within him/her/itself to
assess being conscious, to be able to tell yourself "I am
conscious" (it's a bit hard to assess anything when one is
asleep, not concious)
That's self-awareness.
This makes "1st person" consciousness only known the
experiencing individual, and is therefor inaccessible to
any scientftic "3rd person" observation. We can all
"observe the moon", but not each other's consciousness.
What this means..?
Is that "self-awareness" is subjective, but accessible
through interviews of subjects, as long as it's kept in
*mind* that your talking about an internal mental state and
not something objective.
Does this mean that if an observable biochemical clog called
a human body-brain can have "an internal mental state".. all
"observable stuff" has to some degree "an internal mental
state"?
No.
"Observable stuff" may induce an internal mental state in an
observer through the process of observation: sensation,
perception and cognition.
But if this internal mental state does not reside in the set of
"observable stuff" i.e. the kinda stuff science works with, then
as far as science is concerned such an internal state does not
exist.
We are becoming increasingly able to observe the internal mental
states of patients. PET scanners still don't have enough
resolution to pinpoint single neurons, but they *can* be used to
give a gross "prediction" of what a patient is thinking or
perceiving.
No. *Correlations* are observed, not the internal mental state
itself. I'm not sure you have understood the difference.
I understand it just fine. You're taking "correlation is not
causation" to an illogical conclusion.
What conclusion? All I am doing is explaining/repeating why scienists,
those of great name included, feel that "consciousness" somewhow
escapes scientific explanation.
*Some* scientists, not all. And recent research into the subject tends to
disagree.
According to all our scientific
knowledge there is no reason why an observed biochemical clog
customarily called a human being should have any "internal mental
state" to begin with.
Not true. There are valid ideas on neuropsychology
It would make more sense if we all were very
complex biochemical self-learning robots interacting with our
environment and without any "internal mental state". We might as well,
or even better, be zombies.
Not according to recent research, which does relate "consciousness" to
external behavior. The "p-zombie" arguments are fundamentally flawed in
that they assume that conscious behavior can be acheived without actual
consciousness and without distinguishing what, in fact, constitutes
conscious behavior.
For the moment I have no other conclusions than that maybe we don't
really understand each others points yet. But I can say I'm not into
any mystic hoghwash, nor do I think we need "quantum weirdness" to
explain something we think of as "weird" i.e. conscious experience.
That part I can agree with.
The only thinkable and valid research on conscious experience are
already taking place in biophysics, neuroscience, linguistics,
psychology etc etc. No need for a magic quantum or other rabbit out of
a magic hat to explain consciousness.
Indeed.
Perhaps you haven't heard of the "factors of
causation" or much of the latest research on chimpanzee motivation
and behavior?
Maybe you are
a zombie that does not know directly of any internal mental state?
Maybe you're stuck in old-style strict behaviorism?
Hardly.
Or
at least, that internal mental state cannot be understood or
explained in the framework of any observable stuff.
You just answered your own comment, below.
Which you haven't grasped yet, so it seems.
The "correlation" between observable stuff and internal mental
states although it exists, is not causal and probably not even
real.
Nonsense. It's ridiculous to deny that internal mental states are
causally connected to external behavior and/or sensory perception.
You have it wrong. They are CORRELATED , fully indeed, but cannot
said to be "causally connected". I explained to you why that is the
case: internal mental states are not observables to science. Thats
why you will not find anything "internal" in any scientific
equation where *observables* equate with each other.
Lots of researchers would disagree with you.
Of course there is a 100% correlation between "what the brain does"
and "internal mental states". The point is there no two speperate
entities here that "relate" in any way other than that they are a
useful epistemological distinction. The mind is what the brain does
(or brain what the mind does).
I would put it to you that the difference is similar to that between an
executing instance of a software program and the physical hardware on which
it runs. The "mind" is a process that runs on the "brain".
Indeed then, "what the brain does"
correlates with "what the brain does" but only in the spatio-temporal
sense as any process at t1 followed by t2.
And "what the brain does" can be determined to be causally connected to
"observable behavior" through experimentation.
I believe it can be made intelligible, using classical and solid
science without magic, why it *appears* as-if there there is a "mind"
(internal mental state) seperate from "matter" (observables). Why we
feel as sort of a "ghost in a machin | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
