A God We Know Nothing About

[Diogenes' Dog]

I was thinking more along the lines of psychologists and the the statisticians (particularly): they have lots of numbers but no actual methodology. "Physics envy" as Feynman said.

Did you ever read "The End of Science" by John Horgan? I quote from an article of the same name in the Skeptical Enquirer about methodology...

In 1986, biology Nobelist Sir Peter Medawar commented: Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be, and he will adopt an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare.

Ah, I meant the Eastern "mystics" and their like: some of those seem pretty impervious to a swift lick in the goolies.

I think Buddhism (and Hinduism) speak of Dukkha, which is suffering, caused through attachment, and which is the object of Buddhism to transcend by way of the 4 Noble Truths. However, I think they accept that pain exists. An enlightened person can still feel pain, but is just not attached to the aversion to pain (I think).

Why should you expect any help from the universe?

Because we are lost fragments of the universal mind. You ever read the 'prodigal son' parable?

Not to me: I have to operate within a society of people, therefore I accord them certain courtesies in the hopes that they'll reciprocate.

How very Darwinian! And if you have such power, that their reciprocal courtesy is unhelpful to you (e.g Jews in Nazi Germany)... Would you cease to accord them such courtesies?

The me is what I consider to me be me.
With different memories etc I'd be a different me, no?
No continuity of (self-)identity.

If you lost your memory, what would remain? Not your present identity - true, but as a perceiver of the world, you would continue to experience, though you may have no sense of identity. Identity and consciousness are different. No?

 

[Oli]

Did you ever read "The End of Science" by John Horgan? I quote from an article of the same name in the Skeptical Enquirer about methodology...

Haven't come across that one yet.
But checking the reviews it seems to more about the lack of things to find than science as science running out.

I think Buddhism (and Hinduism) speak of Dukkha, which is suffering, caused through attachment, and which is the object of Buddhism to transcend by way of the 4 Noble Truths. However, I think they accept that pain exists. An enlightened person can still feel pain, but is just not attached to the aversion to pain (I think).

Ah, maybe I misunderstood the bits I read.

Because we are lost fragments of the universal mind. You ever read the 'prodigal son' parable?

But are we?
Er, if you mean the biblical one I heard it a few at Sunday School etc.

How very Darwinian! And if you have such power, that their reciprocal courtesy is unhelpful to you (e.g Jews in Nazi Germany)... Would you cease to accord them such courtesies?

Nope: once I agree to treat people as people why should I distinguish between those close by and those further away?

If you lost your memory, what would remain? Not your present identity - true, but as a perceiver of the world, you would continue to experience, though you may have no sense of identity. Identity and consciousness are different. No?

I tend to think I wouldn't be me anymore.
So that would mean identity and consciousness are different.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
“ There are those who claim that pain and happiness etc. are also illusions... ”


“ Originally Posted by Diogenes' Dog
Like Dr Johnson, I'd refute that argument with sharp kick (to somewhere vulnerable) and the words "I refute your argument thus". ”

That doesn't refute it. ”

Say more?

I'm intrigued as to your reasoning StrangerInAStrangeLa!

It should be you explaining HOW you think that silly argument refutes the proposal but what the heck.
Kicking someone in the balls is no better a test than most other situations in which people think they feel pain.
It's like someone claiming we exist in an artificial simulation & you slam your fist down on a table saying "That's SOLID".

 

[lightgigantic]

Nope. "rules" are after the fact.

interesting

Now would be a good opportunity for you to provide an example of something real/factual that isn't contingent on pre-existing rules (or in pedagogical lingo, how one can arrive at a particular learning outcome without calling upon pre-existing schema)

Liar.

On the plus side, it may help you when you next have the opportunity to publish papers in the field of pedagogy.

 

[lightgigantic]

More ignoring of truth & logic.

the truth and logic of post dated cheques in radical reductionism I take it ......

 

[swarm]

Now would be a good opportunity for you to provide an example of something real/factual that isn't contingent on pre-existing rules

There are no preexisting rules. All rules are just human descriptions of how reality works from the context of our observations and current understanding.

How typical of the religious to mistake the map for the territory.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Haven't come across that one yet.
But checking the reviews it seems to more about the lack of things to find than science as science running out.

Horgan was a principle writer for Scientific American. His thesis is that science will inevitably become more like Psychology or Philosophy as theories become more complex, wacky or expensive to test. Take cutting edge Physics - String theory is bogged down, ToE is making little progress, the rift between QM and Relativity is as wide as ever, identifying Dark Matter and Dark Energy are still elusive, and the field is dominated by a plethora of wacky and untestable theories e.g. Brane theory, the Bostrom Simulation Universe argument, the Pribram-Bohm hologram model etc. etc. Projects such as LHC are illustrative of the increase in expense demanded to test theories like the existence of the Higgs Boson. So, this brief period of decisive scientific methodology will devolve into diverse schools of untestable scientific opinion. Or so he believes...

But are we?.

Yes. though I cannot of course prove it to you!

Er, if you mean the biblical one I heard it a few at Sunday School etc

Yes - that's the one! It's about alienation leading to a change of heart, travelling home, and being welcomed. That is why the universal mind of which we are part, (if you subscribe to that belief) would welcome us and assist our efforts.

Nope: once I agree to treat people as people why should I distinguish between those close by and those further away?

So, if your motive for treating people well is reciprocity, what happens if they don't or can't reciprocate?

I tend to think I wouldn't be me anymore.
So that would mean identity and consciousness are different.

That's what I'm saying - "me" as an identity and "me" as consciousness are different. After losing your memory, you may not know who you are from one minute to the next (loss of identity), but you would still 'enjoy' experiences (continued consciousness). Could be quite scary!

Kicking someone in the balls is no better a test than most other situations in which people think they feel pain.
It's like someone claiming we exist in an artificial simulation & you slam your fist down on a table saying "That's SOLID".

I don't think the analogy works SIASL... If I experience pain, is that not irrefutable evidence that pain exists? I cannot be deceived in this, because experience is foundational to everything else, including rational argument. If 'pain' does not exist, what am I experiencing? I would have to make up a word that means the same as 'pain'. It is direct knowledge, requiring no further justification.

Slamming down your VR fist on a solid VR table however would be the same experience (assuming the VR included accurate tactile simulations) as slamming it down in the 'real' world. Therefore it is no evidence either way.

 

[Oli]

Horgan was a principle writer for Scientific American. -snipped to reduce post size-

I'll keep an eye for the book, SciAm isn't that easy to get hold of over here, in my home town at least.

Yes. though I cannot of course prove it to you!
Yes - that's the one! It's about alienation leading to a change of heart, travelling home, and being welcomed. That is why the universal mind of which we are part, (if you subscribe to that belief) would welcome us and assist our efforts.

Ah.
I can see that.
(Assuming the belief).

So, if your motive for treating people well is reciprocity, what happens if they don't or can't reciprocate?

I keep my fingers crossed some of it rubs off and they do it for other people.

That's what I'm saying - "me" as an identity and "me" as consciousness are different. After losing your memory, you may not know who you are from one minute to the next (loss of identity), but you would still 'enjoy' experiences (continued consciousness).

Somebody would.

Could be quite scary!

Scary?
No, I once wrote a poem about it, entitled "Something to look forward to".

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

the truth and logic of post dated cheques in radical reductionism I take it ......

If anybody is reducing complexity in a radical fashion it's the God people. I don't find the God concept complicated, in fact it's very simplistic, the antithesis of science.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Scary?
No, I once wrote a poem about it, entitled "Something to look forward to".

Looking forward to dementia!? LOL!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

If anybody is reducing complexity in a radical fashion it's the God people. I don't find the God concept complicated, in fact it's very simplistic, the antithesis of science.

I think it is not complicated...

However, one of the characteristics of scientific atheists is a preference for parsimony over complexity - ockhams razor etc. The advantage is straight-forwardness, the danger is over-simplification.

 

[wynn]

If anybody is reducing complexity in a radical fashion it's the God people.

How?

I don't find the God concept complicated, in fact it's very simplistic, the antithesis of science.

How?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

How?

My crops failed last year. What happened? Should I listen to:

the scientific explanation and how to fix it

or

that a benevolent omni-everything skybeing was indicating its displeasure?

What is more simpler than reducing all that is to the actions of a vastly superior entity? Though complexity is expected to reside at both ends of this rainbow and since this thread is about not knowing, then there isn't anything complicated about knowing a God that we can't know about. You might disagree and say we do know and thus provide the simplest explanation for my poor crop, that God willed it. Can there be anything simpler than God did it?

How can we say God is complex when we only believe? God is simple because the concept of this deity encompasses everything. For a good portion of humanity, the God explanation transcends anything science can offer.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

My crops failed last year. What happened? Should I listen to:
the scientific explanation and how to fix it
or
that a benevolent omni-everything skybeing was indicating its displeasure?

Trust "The Scientific Explanation" of course! ...and our team of smooth talking and friendly salesmen.

For a fraction of the total cost of your farm, we will supply you with the latest experimental GM seeds, PLUS our super-persistant pesticides that remain in the food chain for decades and a shed-full of heavy-metal fungicides for liberal application on your land.

Just sign the disclaimer on the dotted line, and after your first payment is made, your life, and those of your neighbours will never be the same again!

Any incidents of human or livestock poisoning, cancer or disease, or pollution of soil, rivers and lakes or GM/non-GM crop cross pollination due to our products is strictly not our problem. Your life is in our hands, so don't even think of sueing!

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Trust "The Scientific Explanation" of course! ...and our team of smooth talking and friendly salesmen.

For a fraction of the total cost of your farm, we will supply you with the latest experimental GM seeds, PLUS our super-persistant pesticides that remain in the food chain for decades and a shed-full of heavy-metal fungicides for liberal application on your land.

Just sign the disclaimer on the dotted line, and after your first payment is made, your life, and those of your neighbours will never be the same again!

Any incidents of human or livestock poisoning, cancer or disease, or pollution of soil, rivers and lakes or GM/non-GM crop cross pollination due to our products is strictly not our problem. Your life is in our hands, so don't even think of sueing!

Then again you could take the displeased skybeing explanation but first you'll have to figure out what you did wrong. Once you do.....

One might start by sacrificing a few goats and if things don't improve perhaps a human sacrifice might do the trick. Make war, kill your neighbor, steal their women, try anything to turn your fortune around.

This slight digression does not take away from the fact that science is complex, as the DDog just confirmed. Inventing Gods and then having the audacity to say you know what they want is 100 times more simple than actually learning why things go bump in the night.

 

[wynn]

My crops failed last year. What happened? Should I listen to:

the scientific explanation and how to fix it

or

that a benevolent omni-everything skybeing was indicating its displeasure?

What is more simpler than reducing all that is to the actions of a vastly superior entity? Though complexity is expected to reside at both ends of this rainbow and since this thread is about not knowing, then there isn't anything complicated about knowing a God that we can't know about. You might disagree and say we do know and thus provide the simplest explanation for my poor crop, that God willed it. Can there be anything simpler than God did it?

How can we say God is complex when we only believe? God is simple because the concept of this deity encompasses everything. For a good portion of humanity, the God explanation transcends anything science can offer.

There are 'simple theistic explanations' and there are 'complex theistic explanations'.

A 'simple theistic explanation' of why your crops failed is 'God did it' or 'God is wroth with you'.

A 'complex theistic explanation' of why your crops failed is that since you and possibly your fellow humans have not followed the regulations on how to work your fields and how to live your life in general as prescribed in the scriptures, you are now reaping the results of your unlawful actions.



Sure, there are theists who sign up only for 'simple theistic explanations' and who resent anything beyond that. There are, for example, Christians who think that the complex doctrines in the Vedas are simply the devil's work, an attempt to bring people away from God and Jesus by means of elaborate philosophy and regulations.

But such a Christian view (or a view that purports to be Christian) is not the only theistic view there is. There are other, very complex theistic views as well. But it's up to you whether you will seriuosly investigate those, or whether you will stick to fideism.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

There are 'simple theistic explanations' and there are 'complex theistic explanations'.

A 'simple theistic explanation' of why your crops failed is 'God did it' or 'God is wroth with you'.

A 'complex theistic explanation' of why your crops failed is that since you and possibly your fellow humans have not followed the regulations on how to work your fields and how to live your life in general as prescribed in the scriptures, you are now reaping the results of your unlawful actions.

Either way God did it. How simple can it be. It is impossible to reduce it anymore since you don't even know God or if He exists. If you want complexity then I suggest you start to break down your own thoughts. Start with the brain's construction, the material needed, and how the material got here in the first place. Some call this reductionism but it is not just taking things to the lowest common denominator. A reductionist is apt to delve into complexities rather than accept unreasonable simplicities.

Why are our thoughts considered more complex than the mechanism that produced them?

 

[wynn]

If you want complexity then I suggest you start to break down your own thoughts. Start with the brain's construction, the material needed, and how the material got here in the first place.

But this is precisely what some 'complex theistic explanations' do.


It seems though that as soon as a theistic explanation has God factor in in some way or another, you dismiss it as yet another simplistic 'God-did-it', ignoring what the explanation actually says.

Some call this reductionism but it is not just taking things to the lowest common denominator. A reductionist is apt to delve into complexities rather than accept unreasonable simplicities.

?

It seems that the 'reductionism' you are after is of the sort that leaves God out of the picture, reducing the phenomenon of life to mere matter.

Why are our thoughts considered more complex than the mechanism that produced them?

Who considers them such?

 

[lightgigantic]

There are no preexisting rules. All rules are just human descriptions of how reality works from the context of our observations and current understanding.

Oh?

So before embarking in an empirical analysis, there is no need for such arbitrary contributions of a universe with order that heeds repeatability, etc etc?

Once again, feel free to offer an example of something "real" divorced from any some sort of pre-existing frame of reference

How typical of the religious to mistake the map for the territory.

How typical of a radical reductionist to wander around blind not only of the philosophical territory they are laying claim to but also their own epistemological methods.

Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.

-Lewis Wolpert, The Unnatural Nature of Science

 

[lightgigantic]

If anybody is reducing complexity in a radical fashion it's the God people. I don't find the God concept complicated, in fact it's very simplistic, the antithesis of science.

On the contrary, radical reductionism has fewer players in the field ( it only has one - matter) ... and as your post touches on, it doesn't even have the means to begin "breaking down one's thoughts"

:shrug: