Still waiting on proof of one's god.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

No, no, no. You can't have it both ways. You can spend 90 posts telling everyone that what they see is an illusion, and then turn around and say you're just "one of the guys".

There is no logic to your argument, friend.

I see logic in his argument, think about it properly go back and read the earlier posts before you two went off track. you was about to fully grasp it until he said your a slow tortoise then you got defensive because he got impatiet.


Go back and read it again up until the point where he insulted you, then continue the debate.


peace.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I'm trying to understand this.

Now we are left with consciousness and perceptions, all other things are assumptions.

Yes the individual is a perception (or a bunddle of perception), the body, the habits, the thoughts...

Quote #1 says we are left with consciousness and perception yet #2 says people & thoughts are perceptions. Consciousness you said was the only thing real so I would have to conclude that all perceptions are not real. Am I right so far?

Knowing this, can I rephrase 'I think therefore I am' to read:

Perceptions(I) perceive(think) therefore perceptions(I) are assumed(am)....

Assumed and am kind of contradict....am I missing something?

or

Nothing that is real (I) does nothing real(think) therefore nothing that is real(I) is assumed(am)....

Same problem....you did say everything else was an assumption so I'm using the state of being as an assumption.

If the state of being is an assumption and consciousness has a state of being then is not consciousness also an assumption?

If the state of being is a perception then is consciousness also a perception? No different than an individual. It would seem that state of being should also be real. If consciousness is real then it must have a state of being, therefore state of being is real.

 

[TW Scott]

*************
M*W: Yes, they do, and the literal sun was given many a name and different identities by humans over the millenia. That's one reason I know there is no true god.

How is that proof there is no true god? Logically it is lonly proof that the sun has been known by many names and that people have attributed it with personalities based on their culture. Extrapolating this to mean more is bad science and worse logic.

 

[audible]

Extrapolating this to mean more is bad science and worse logic.

How so, explain.

 

[ronan]

Wasn't that first by lao tzu, I forget the daodejing verse let me check,

by the way I understand what your saying to Jd.

peace.

So finnaly I am not alone in the "wrong" way
Good to know

No, no, no. You can't have it both ways. You can spend 90 posts telling everyone that what they see is an illusion, and then turn around and say you're just "one of the guys".

There is no logic to your argument, friend.

I assure you I am living here in this world, I am even typing on a computer to post some comment here on sciforums

The problem with our discussion is the use of words which have many meaning.

I'm trying to understand this.

Quote #1 says we are left with consciousness and perception yet #2 says people & thoughts are perceptions. Consciousness you said was the only thing real so I would have to conclude that all perceptions are not real. Am I right so far?

Here the word real have many meaning:
for example it can mean the banana in front of you is real, it means that I can grasp it and eat it and feel like I eat a banana. In other word it is not an fake banana.

In this way banana, people are real

Other definition of reality would mean what is beyond perception.
Here according to science what we see as banana is the result of our brain and is not really out there (in reality beyond our perception, at leats not as a banana). It is a construction made by our biological body, and as such it is share by the human community and thus it has a reality for them. It is thus a relative reality.

Similarly all our perception, including the brain have relative reality. they are perception due to our place in the world, due our identity, to our perspective.

Knowing this, can I rephrase 'I think therefore I am' to read:

Perceptions(I) perceive(think) therefore perceptions(I) are assumed(am)....

Assumed and am kind of contradict....am I missing something?

Here is the problem with the 'I'.
It can means consciousness or the percpetion of one self.
When I say I am ronan, this I is my body, my habits....
while when Descartes used his doubt, 'I' was reffering to consciousness.

therefore you should not confuse the 'I' which is consciousness and the 'I' which is your identity (perceived)

or

Nothing that is real (I) does nothing real(think) therefore nothing that is real(I) is assumed(am)....

Same problem....you did say everything else was an assumption so I'm using the state of being as an assumption.

If the state of being is an assumption and consciousness has a state of being then is not consciousness also an assumption?

If the state of being is a perception then is consciousness also a perception? No different than an individual. It would seem that state of being should also be real. If consciousness is real then it must have a state of being, therefore state of being is real.

Here I did not follow you,

what I say is that:
perception are real as perception but to say that they represent what is beyond themselves (reality) is an assumption.

while consciousness is real since without it there would be no perception.

And that this consciousness could not be a perception, thus it is not you, not me , neither anything perceived,
It is god. it permits perception, it permits the existence of our phenomenal world composed of banana and people.

without god (consciousness), no phenomenal world

so god/consciousness (which is not you, not me, not banana, not anything perceived) exists.

 

[mustafhakofi]

I see logic in his argument, think about it properly go back and read the earlier posts before you two went off track. you was about to fully grasp it until he said your a slow tortoise then you got defensive because he got impatiet.

peace.

Can you explain it to the rest of us mere mortals, or do we all need a smack on the head with a mallet, to get it.

 

[Simon Anders]

How so, explain.

You cannot psychoanalyze a belief and find a pattern and say THAT IS THE CAUSE.

For example: a woman works at a company. Twice she has complained to management about two different supervisors. She says they are sexist and do not treat her with respect. We find out that the woman's father was a real tyrant who thought women should make babies and stay at home. We find out that she has had conflicts with male authority figures in the past.

So she must be wrong about these two guys?

No.

Her two supervisors could very well be assholes who think women are stupid and have treated her with no respect.

To see a psychological pattern can raise doubts, but it does not in any way constitute proof of anything.

 

[mustafhakofi]

So finnaly I am not alone in the "wrong" way
Good to know

Yes the lunatics are taking over the asylum.

I assure you I am living here in this world, I am even typing on a computer to post some comment here on sciforums

Yes it is surprising how your managing that, with a straight jacket on.

The problem with our discussion is the use of words which have many meaning.

Or could it be you like to change the meaning of words to suit your current post.

Here the word real have many meaning:

The word real only has one proper meaning, physically existing not imaginary, authentic undisputed verifiable fact.

for example it can mean the banana in front of you is real, it means that I can grasp it and eat it and feel like I eat a banana. In other word it is not an fake banana. In this way banana, people are real,

Are they yellow these banana people of yours, or are they like the green pea pod people, from Pensacola, Florida.

Other definition of reality would mean what is beyond perception.

Absolute rubbish, in your imagination probably.

Here according to science what we see as banana is the result of our brain and is not really out there (in reality beyond our perception, at leats not as a banana).

So this banana, that looks, taste, smells, feels, and even sounds like a banana is a what!. If it waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, smells like duck and taste like duck, then it must be a fish.

It is a construction made by our biological body,

No it's a construction made by your imagination, emphasis on your imagination.

and as such it is share by the human community and thus it has a reality for them. It is thus a relative reality.

Rubbish, a banana is a banana to everybody, even though it may have different names, it will always be a half moon shaped, yellow, fruit. unless you wish to think of it as an orange, but us normal people will continue to see it as it is, a banana.

Similarly all our perception, including the brain have relative reality. they are perception due to our place in the world, due our identity, to our perspective.

No they are facts, in this world they would be fact irregardless of us existing, there would still be bananas, oranges and apples etc... You do talk some utter and complete bollocks.

 

[Simon Anders]

The word real only has one proper meaning, physically existing not imaginary, authentic undisputed verifiable fact.

You are so busy being insulting that you missed the fact that he described two different meanings for the word 'real'. So in this case, at least, your mocking and insulting comes off very poorly. I'll toss in a 3rd definition: REAL=actual rather than potential or possible.

 

[audible]

You cannot psychoanalyze a belief and find a pattern and say THAT IS THE CAUSE.

Who's psychoanalyzing a belief, what M*W is stating, has been shown to be factual, given that all the belief systems past a present stem from the same thing.
If you use the same logic TWScott is using, you could say how is that proof that there isn't a flying pink unicorn. Stating an imaginary concept as real is infantile. The Sun however we can see, and feel, without it we would all die.

The "how so, explain" still stands.

 

[mustafhakofi]

You are so busy being insulting that you missed the fact that he described two different meanings for the word 'real'. So in this case, at least, your mocking and insulting comes off very poorly. I'll toss in a 3rd definition: REAL=actual rather than potential or possible.

These so called other meaning or should we put them in there proper position sub-meanings were covered here

"The word real only has one proper meaning, physically existing, not imaginary, authentic, undisputed, verifiable, fact."

The main one being physically existing.
I didn't miss anything, he only gave what he believed reality meant, your is a sub-meaning see Authentic in the previous quote.
If a person continues to be ignorant whilst all around him is trying to correct him, then he doesn't deserve anything other then ridicule, it's Compounded ignorance the Romans had a word for it "dulcis ignorantia".

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Can you explain it to the rest of us mere mortals, or do we all need a smack on the head with a mallet, to get it.

Basicaly he is arguing that the working brain alone of an animal does not result in consciousness, for instance if you look at it on a computer wiring scale it comes to the same conclusion. A wired network and system can send and recieve information that is processed and checked as many ways as you like but it will not result in consciousness of the system.

We have perception of the working system outside of the regular function, Like I can have perception of a rock I look at, He is saying our perception is a higher state from another source, not a result of just a functioning computer.


peace.

 

[Simon Anders]

These so called other meaning or should we put them in there proper position sub-meanings were covered here The main one being physically existing.

Does a potential physically exist or not?
Does a fake banana exist or not?
Does a relationship physically exist?
Does the future or the past exist? Are they unreal in the same sense as the square root of negative one and my second penis?
Do ideas exist? Where?

Biophysicist Gregory Engel and his colleagues cooled a green sulfur bacterium—Chlorobium tepidum, one of the oldest photosynthesizers on the planet—to 77 kelvins [–321 degrees Fahrenheit] and then pulsed it with extremely short bursts of laser light. By manipulating these pulses, the researchers could track the flow of energy through the bacterium's photosynthetic system. "We always thought of it as hopping through the system, the same way that you or I might run through a maze of bushes," Engel explains. "But, instead of coming to an intersection and going left or right, it can actually go in both directions at once and explore many different paths most efficiently."

In other words, plants are employing the basic principles of quantum mechanics to transfer energy from chromophore (photosynthetic molecule) to chromophore until it reaches the so-called reaction center where photosynthesis, as it is classically defined, takes place. The particles of energy are behaving like waves. "We see very strong evidence for a wavelike motion of energy through these photosynthetic complexes," Engel says. The results appear in the current issue of Nature.

Does the light 'really' go down the various pathways at the same time?

I didn't miss anything, he only gave what he believed reality meant, your is a sub-meaning see Authentic in the previous quote.
If a person continues to be ignorant whilst all around him is trying to correct him, then he doesn't deserve anything other then ridicule, it's Compounded ignorance the Romans had a word for it "dulcis ignorantia"

You could ignore him.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Does a potential physically exist or not?

No.

Does a fake banana exist or not?

Yes, as a fake banana.

Does a relationship physically exist?

No, not physically, but it's not imaginary and verifiable

Does the future or the past exist?

No, but one did, and the other may do tomorrow, after it metamorphosis's as the present, they are also verifiable.

Do ideas exist?

Yes. in the electric discharges in the brain. Because they are not imaginary, and verifiable.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Basically he is arguing that the working brain alone of an animal does not result in consciousness, for instance if you look at it on a computer wiring scale it comes to the same conclusion. A wired network and system can send and receive information that is processed and checked as many ways as you like but it will not result in consciousness of the system.

Yes I gathered that, but it makes no sense, it is a poor analogy, a computer is a an inanimate object. Whereas mans/animals brains function, result in consciousness, the only way the brain couldn't would be if the man/animal was comatose.

We have perception of the working system outside of the regular function,

Do we, what like an outer body experience.

Like I can have perception of a rock I look at,

But so can I, but I'm not on the outside look in.

He is saying our perception is a higher state from another source,

I know he's making that baseless assumption, but it doesn't follow, it needs evidence, doesn't it...

not a result of just a functioning computer.

humans/animals aren't just functioning computers. they are a lot more.

 

[joepistole]

Lack of proof is not in and of itself proof!

 

[mustafhakofi]

Lack of proof is not in and of itself proof!

It only takes one micro instance of a thing to show it exists. It is however unreasonable to believe something, without evidence.
Without any reasonable proof, anything can be assumed to exist.

 

[joepistole]

Atoms were assumed to exist before there was proof of existence. Strings are presumed to exist without proof of existance. But again, lack of proof does not consitute proof.

 

[mustafhakofi]

Atoms were assumed to exist before there was proof of existence. Strings are presumed to exist without proof of existance. But again, lack of proof does not consitute proof.

And the earth was assumed to be flat, and the sun went round the earth, etc...
it still remains unreasonable to accept something without evidence.

Shall we go round again.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Here the word real have many meaning....

By your definition what you just said is an assumption. If there is only one meaning for 'real', then that is a perception, thusly rendering other meanings to the assumption category. Since we don't know which 'real' is being referred to, then any meaning for 'real' is an assumption, including the perceived real meaning. Any perceived meaning for a word thus becomes an assumption. IOW there can be no perceived meaning(perception) for words with multiple meanings. That said .....

Other definition of reality would mean what is beyond perception

Since reality is a derivative of the word 'real' which is endowed with multiple meanings and is an assumption then anything beyond perception, a definition you just mentioned for reality, is an assumption.

I just checked Answers.com for the meaning of consciousness. There are 4 meanings available to the reader. God has 6 meanings(freedictionary.com).

without god (consciousness), no phenomenal world.......so god/consciousness (which is not you, not me, not banana, not anything perceived) exists.

If God/consciousness is perceived but has multiple meanings then why is He not an assumption? By your definition God exists but since there is no way of knowing which meaning for consciousness or god you are using then it cannot be peceived and assumptions exist as I stated earlier. One true meaning would make god/consciousness a perception at least.

I can only conclude that nothing is real, perceived meanings are assumptions, god/consciousness because of their multiple meanings cannot be real, perception maybe but more than likely assumptions.

However I need something real, perhaps it's everything that's sensed. Maybe every word in the dictionary with multiple meanings should be reduced to one meaning and the other meanings given new words.