The joys of life without God

[lightgigantic]

Going by the dictionary, 'conciousness' is a collection of different functions controlled by the brain; sensations, thoughts, awareness of surroundings, emotions etc... All of which have a physical basis within the brain as I am sure most neuroscientists would back me up on.

This dictionary definition relies on the philosophical aspect of psychology (thoughts, awareness etc) - all of which are completely irreconciliable with the fndings of neurologists - electrons, neurons, etc etc - you have indirectly illuminated the precise problem of defining consciousness by science - although to a layman it might appear like a cohesive definition (which is generally what dictionaries are used for ....)

 

[lightgigantic]

Then, you have created your own definition for 'authority' because your statement is complete nonsense.

axiom = authority

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise D

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You seem to be stating that the claims of religion cannot be verified by science - but there are many things that cannot be verified by science, even within science, such as consciousness for eg, what to speak of the consciousness of more elevated personalities than humans ”



This argument is a waste of time. What do unverifiable hypotheses in science have to do with anything in religion? Proof of a factor in science has nothing to do with the lack of proof of anything in religion

It was more to indicate how what goes down in the name of science is not a complete paradigm for defining reality - .

Further, science cannot prove a single theist claim. Not one. This is not to say that the burden of proof is on the scientific community in the first place. At any rate, theists can't prove them either. Scientists can prove all of the theories that are currently accepted as scientific truth (note the lack of the word "absolute").

I raised this point specifically to address claims like this "Science has not proved god therefore god is false" - there are many things that science has not proven - our own sense of self is one (there is no scientific evidence for the mind - although it is implied in aspects of philosophy in psychology) - what to speak of god, specifically when there is scriptural indications that god cannot be approached by the examination of dull matter (anymore than we can approach our own sense of self through examinations of dull matter)

 

[c7ityi_]

Yea! C7 we discused here many times solipsism however there's a comon flaw to this, it can't be true,

no it's not solipsism, i hate solipsism (egoism). you don't get it.

because if I were the only consciousness and everyone else is just part of my imagination, then you wouldn't exist! And do you exist C7? Or are you just part of my imagination? Your consciousness, your life that you perceived actually, I programed it into my computer, you are a figment of my program

i'm just a projection in your consciousness. but your consciousness is not your ego, your person, your body... it's THE omnipresent consciousness. everything is inside it, also your own body. they're all projections of consciousness. your body/person is no more real than my. it's just a character, like in a videogame, or in a dream.

THE consciousness is the real one. there is only one. there is no distinct you or me. we are all one. we create our own reality. you created me to say this to you. and i created you.

but if you know you are the only consciousness here, then this is your world, and i'm just a projection, and i do what you want me to do, because i'm a creation (thought) in your consciuosness. if you expect me to say something good, i'll do that, and if you expect me to be crazy, i'll be that.

you only see what you believe. if you change your beliefs the world changes. if you start believing in god, he will show himself to you. but you can't see without believing, because you'll just be creating an imaginary world here were god does not exist, because you create the world with your thoughts and beliefs.

 

[KennyJC]

This dictionary definition relies on the philosophical aspect of psychology (thoughts, awareness etc) - all of which are completely irreconciliable with the fndings of neurologists - electrons, neurons, etc etc - you have indirectly illuminated the precise problem of defining consciousness by science - although to a layman it might appear like a cohesive definition (which is generally what dictionaries are used for ....)

That depends... theists are fond of using the word 'conciousness' as though it is a singular item, when of course it is a combination of different functions within the brain, I think I am right in saying. The fact we can 'map' the brain and determine what areas do what, should tell you that we know enough about the brain to determine it's characteristics and physical functions. It's not just guess work. You are blindly dismissing the work of science and the brain itself, lets not forget. You are that highschool drop out that rubbishes claims of an electron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
^^
Some light Reading...

 

[Godless]

i'm just a projection in your consciousness. but your consciousness is not your ego, your person, your body... it's THE omnipresent consciousness. everything is inside it, also your own body. they're all projections of consciousness. your body/person is no more real than my. it's just a character, like in a videogame, or in a dream.

That settles it then; You are just a nut job much more like your just as delusional as LG, or further gone. Take a look at what you wrote, give it to some psychologist. "Warning" you might get admited in the psycho ward.

 

[(Q)]

axiom = authority

axiom: (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident

authority: an expert whose views are taken as definitive, or, persons who exercise (administrative) control over others

Ok, LG, what's the connection here?

 

[c7ityi_]

That settles it then; You are just a nut job much more like your just as delusional as LG, or further gone. Take a look at what you wrote, give it to some psychologist. "Warning" you might get admited in the psycho ward.

i don't want to becuz i think most psychologists are psychos...

 

[Enterprise-D]

Well the first question is to determine what the process is - I think we have been this way before - all that you came up with was that the process innvolved placing one's backside on a seat in a building that has a sign something like "church" out the front - apparently the longer one has done this the more qualified one is in the field ....

Your own list of epistemological steps amount to nothing more than this. Since your list amounts to taking a religious authority and the bible on faith, avid churchgoing qualifies.

The processes can only be logically justified by an authority - in other words by someone who has successfully applied the relevant methodology, in the case of the science experiment - certainly they cannot be justified by a high school drop out

The only place authority occurs in a scientific process is the postulation. Anyone can even devise relevant experimentation to test the postulation.
For example, I can say fire consumes paper...no authority need be heeded to challenge and test that statement. And if Einstein said it, you can feel free to doubt him and try it yourself rather than accepting it on blind faith simply because his name is Albert Einstein. The italicized section is what your kind of epistemology would have everyone do.

It was more to indicate how what goes down in the name of science is not a complete paradigm for defining reality - .

It was more of a defensive shot, to draw an irrelevant parallel that would support your stance.

I raised this point specifically to address claims like this "Science has not proved god therefore god is false" - there are many things that science has not proven - our own sense of self is one (there is no scientific evidence for the mind - although it is implied in aspects of philosophy in psychology)...

There are indeed many things that the scientific community has not learned to prove. However
1. The physical existence of these questioned items is PROOF in and of itself that said items exist. Consciousness for example is self-evident. Therefore it exists.
2. I specifically worded it that the scientific community hasn't learned to prove certain factors yet. Proofs however exist for the scientific community to discover and learn about. Science is not about absolutes, it is about the journey of acquiring knowledge. These folks are very aware they don't know everything, but to accept an absolute explanation with no physical existence is absurd.

By the way..."dull matter" has no scientific meaning. I noticed you slipped in a new sciency-sounding theist catch phrase while we weren't looking

...you only see what you believe. if you change your beliefs the world changes. if you start believing in god, he will show himself to you. but you can't see without believing, because you'll just be creating an imaginary world here were god does not exist, because you create the world with your thoughts and beliefs.

Crock and balderdash. This was addressed before. The self fuelling believe-to-see-to-believe.
The world just IS, C7. It exists. Your perception is what you change with your thoughts and beliefs and therefore I am inclined to agree with Godless' evaluation of your post.

 

[c7ityi_]

so close... yet so far...

The world just IS, C7. It exists. Your perception is what you change with your thoughts and beliefs and therefore I am inclined to agree with Godless' evaluation of your post.

i created people like you and godless... to convince me that the world is objective... and that god doesn't exist... because... i'm not ready to believe this yet... i'm afraid to believe it...

that's why people discuss... (to convince themselves)

we consist of two parts. one part wants to evolve and become greater. and the other part wants to remain the same. one part doesn't want to die and another part wants to be born. no light without darkness...

it's like planets orbiting the sun. they want to fall into the sun and become greater, yet they want to remain themselves, they are afraid to evolve. so... they don't really know what to do... and soon they realize... this is just what i'm supposed to do... to go around the sun...

but i dunno... maybe it's just good guys against bad guys... so...
who will win?

(it's never-ending... always evolving... and becoming closer... but never reaching...)

...
so... you created me to convince yourself that you're right...
?

 

[Enterprise-D]

That was so deep! Like a dinner plate :bugeye:

 

[lightgigantic]

KennyJC

That depends... theists are fond of using the word 'conciousness' as though it is a singular item, when of course it is a combination of different functions within the brain,

actually consciousness just means the sense of self that continues through all the physical and mental changes we go through from birth to death - "I think therefore I am"

I think I am right in saying. The fact we can 'map' the brain and determine what areas do what,

I don't think you undrstand "I think therefore I am" - more than mere mapping of memory and motoring skills there is the sense of "I" which is totally non-mapped by reductionist approaches

should tell you that we know enough about the brain to determine it's characteristics and physical functions.

It's not just guess work. You are blindly dismissing the work of science and the brain itself, lets not forget. You are that highschool drop out that rubbishes claims of an electron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
^^
Some light Reading...

The link has nothing to do with what I am referring to - neurology is only one small aspect of consciousness - I am not refuting the claims of neurological science - I am claiming that there is no molecular definitions to establish what we understand as "self"

 

[lightgigantic]

axiom: (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident

authority: an expert whose views are taken as definitive, or, persons who exercise (administrative) control over others

Ok, LG, what's the connection here?

try axiom = authoratative if you want to seperate the axiom from the person who established the axiom

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise D

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Well the first question is to determine what the process is - I think we have been this way before - all that you came up with was that the process innvolved placing one's backside on a seat in a building that has a sign something like "church" out the front - apparently the longer one has done this the more qualified one is in the field .... ”



Your own list of epistemological steps amount to nothing more than this. Since your list amounts to taking a religious authority and the bible on faith, avid churchgoing qualifies.

Certainly explains why religion never worked for you if thats what you think the process is

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The processes can only be logically justified by an authority - in other words by someone who has successfully applied the relevant methodology, in the case of the science experiment - certainly they cannot be justified by a high school drop out ”



The only place authority occurs in a scientific process is the postulation. Anyone can even devise relevant experimentation to test the postulation.
For example, I can say fire consumes paper...no authority need be heeded to challenge and test that statement. And if Einstein said it, you can feel free to doubt him and try it yourself rather than accepting it on blind faith simply because his name is Albert Einstein. The italicized section is what your kind of epistemology would have everyone do.

similarly - one can follow the process to directly perceive the claims of religion - first prerequisite is to know what the correct proces is though - like for instance if you think a sheet of metal is a sheet of paper it probably won't burn

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I raised this point specifically to address claims like this "Science has not proved god therefore god is false" - there are many things that science has not proven - our own sense of self is one (there is no scientific evidence for the mind - although it is implied in aspects of philosophy in psychology)... ”



There are indeed many things that the scientific community has not learned to prove. However
1. The physical existence of these questioned items is PROOF in and of itself that said items exist. Consciousness for example is self-evident. Therefore it exists.

Unfortunately however consciousness does not exist according to reductionist outlooks

2. I specifically worded it that the scientific community hasn't learned to prove certain factors yet. Proofs however exist for the scientific community to discover and learn about. Science is not about absolutes, it is about the journey of acquiring knowledge. These folks are very aware they don't know everything, but to accept an absolute explanation with no physical existence is absurd.

If you want to establish the words perceivable and physical are identical you have already contradicted your first point about consciousness ...

By the way..."dull matter" has no scientific meaning. I noticed you slipped in a new sciency-sounding theist catch phrase while we weren't looking

interesting - dull matter doesn't exist but consciousness does, even though reductionist paradigms operate out of examinations of such things as electrons, atoms, molecules etc - your plurality is amusing

 

[Godless]

try axiom = authoratative if you want to seperate the axiom from the person who established the axiom

Don't you just love him? Heck look at this way, at least he makes us laugh!

Try this; in logic, an indemonstrable first principle, rule, or maxim, that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy of common acceptance whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit or on the basis of an appeal to self-evidence. An example would be: “Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.” http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011480/axiom

Oxygen exists is an axiom, to reject such an assumption you make a complete idiot of yourself, you got lungs, you breat air, mostly made up of oxygen therefore, oxygen exists. Gravity is an axiom, to refuse this postulate, you can make a complete ass of yourself "as you often do" LOL..

*Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive -- more at AGENT
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=axiom

**1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Math.a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of study the consequences that follow from it.
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/axiom

This enough authoraty for ya?

 

[KennyJC]

Unfortunately however consciousness does not exist according to reductionist outlooks

What are you talking about? Just because 'conciousness' is a material process doesn't mean it doesn't exist... Rather like the Sun...

 

[Godless]

Kenny, he admits that he has no "consciousness" therefore it is understood why this dipshit make an ass of himself constantly

 

[(Q)]

try axiom = authoratative if you want to seperate the axiom from the person who established the axiom

People don't establish axioms, hence there is NO authority to an axiom.

Again, you are making up your own definitions to suit your needs.

 

[lightgigantic]

People don't establish axioms, hence there is NO authority to an axiom.

Again, you are making up your own definitions to suit your needs.

you missed what I was referring to - axioms are authoratative - if they weren't they wouldn't be called axioms

 

[lightgigantic]

What are you talking about? Just because 'conciousness' is a material process doesn't mean it doesn't exist... Rather like the Sun...

Consciousness is not a material process (or at least if it is you sure haven't given a hint of what you think that material process may be)- all you have given indications for are the possible chemical mechanisms that dictate "I feel happy" or "I remember" - what you have not addressed is the "I" upon which all these transformations of experience takes place

Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.

taken from here