The joys of life without God

[(Q)]

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

And you missed the very basic elementary school concepts of definitions.

Axioms cannot be authoritive by their very own distinct definitions.

Fact it LG, you're making up your own definitions or misunderstanding/ignoring current definitions.

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

One of the disadvantages of plunging midway between a discourse is that you run the risk of making yourself appear foolish because you are not aware of the contextof discussion - what brought us to this point is how newton's axiomatic foundations got superceded by einsteins - I don't know where you got the axiom of oxegyn from

- or rather I can hazard a guess where you did

 

[lightgigantic]

And you missed the very basic elementary school concepts of definitions.

Axioms cannot be authoritive by their very own distinct definitions.

Fact it LG, you're making up your own definitions or misunderstanding/ignoring current definitions.

so you can work with equations innvolving the speed of light by slapping an extra digit on anywhere you want?

 

[Enterprise-D]

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

You defined the steps, and I just pointed out that avid churchgoing is within your definition

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

Now you are defining all humans as starting out in adult life with as much knowledge and naivete as "Kyle XY" (copyright to it's respective owner). And what does a correct process have to do with the correct material?

Unfortunately however consciousness does not exist according to reductionist outlooks

Rubbish. Who cares? Point?

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

Poppycock. "Perceivable" does not exist for your claim. I actually should have said perceivable myself or maybe observable rather than physical. Since your epistemology list results in nothing - perceivable or otherwise.

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

From what I figure with this theist fad, theists use sciency-sounding words to try to borrow technical authority from the realm of science. I never said dull matter does not exist. I said that dull matter has no scientific definition.

I gather however that theists use the phrase to replace their use of the word 'flesh' as in 'pleasures of the flesh'. Dull matter to theists obviously means physical existence as opposed to spiritual existence; but sounds more technical this way since it is similar to the phrase dark matter

(LOL "pleasures of the dull matter" ... ooo funny)

And where do you get off bringing in "reductionism"? What does reductionism have to do with the fact that your phrase "dull matter" is meaningless? Q is correct, you bring to fore anything unrelated that seems to help your post du jour.

 

[lightgigantic]

ED

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Enterprise D
Certainly explains why religion never worked for you if thats what you think the process is ”



You defined the steps, and I just pointed out that avid churchgoing is within your definition

Funny - I don't recall mentioning it

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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 ”



Now you are defining all humans as starting out in adult life with as much knowledge and naivete as "Kyle XY" (copyright to it's respective owner). And what does a correct process have to do with the correct material?

Try burning a sheet of metal with matches and you tell us

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Unfortunately however consciousness does not exist according to reductionist outlooks ”



Rubbish. Who cares? Point?

well if you insist on using reductionist models of thought to determine the nature reality I thought it would be relevant .....

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If you want to establish the words perceivable and physical are identical you have already contradicted your first point about consciousness ... ”



Poppycock. "Perceivable" does not exist for your claim. I actually should have said perceivable myself or maybe observable rather than physical. Since your epistemology list results in nothing - perceivable or otherwise.

So tell us what do you perceive about consciousness - is it proof ?? And if it is perceivable to you but it is not perceivable to me does it still remain as proof?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic

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
”



From what I figure with this theist fad, theists use sciency-sounding words to try to borrow technical authority from the realm of science. I never said dull matter does not exist. I said that dull matter has no scientific definition.

Since science is primarily concerned about elements and electrons and atoms and molecules I am not sure what you are talking about

I gather however that theists use the phrase to replace their use of the word 'flesh' as in 'pleasures of the flesh'. Dull matter to theists obviously means physical existence as opposed to spiritual existence; but sounds more technical this way since it is similar to the phrase dark matter

(LOL "pleasures of the dull matter" ... ooo funny)

less so here - I haven't the foggiest what you are alluding to

And where do you get off bringing in "reductionism"? What does reductionism have to do with the fact that your phrase "dull matter" is meaningless? Q is correct, you bring to fore anything unrelated that seems to help your post du jour.

reductionism is primarily the paradigm that molecular evolutionists work out of - caution - this link contains the word ontological

 

[KennyJC]

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)

What you just said is illogical beyond even your own standards. Everything withinin this universe is material, nothing I believe can escape that fact, God or no God. I think that by using our common sense and critical thinking, 'conciousness' must obey the same principles just like any other process within the brain.

To be completely blunt with you LG, you would have to be utterly stupid to label any observable phenomenon as immaterial, even if it is something as yet not perfectly understood.

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

This proves 'conciousness' is immaterial how?

Also taken from Wiki:

The brain controls "lower" or involuntary activities such as heartbeat, respiration, and digestion - these are known as autonomic functions- as well as sensation, movement, and a variety of special senses. The brain also controls "higher" order, conscious activities, such as thought, reasoning, and abstraction. The human brain is generally regarded as more capable of these higher order activities than that of any other known species.

 

[Enterprise-D]

ED
Funny - I don't recall mentioning it

YOUR epistemological thread lists in detail how to achieve perception of god. YOUR epistemological quality list can be achieved through avid churchgoing.

Are you like 4 years old or something?

Try burning a sheet of metal with matches and you tell us

Lightee, again, you assume that all humans are unbelievably stupid. All of us have some sort of basic knowledge, and all of us use this common sense to come to various decisions. OBVIOUSLY the average human knows what a sheet of paper is as opposed to what a sheet of metal is EVEN IF that human does not know they are named "steel" and "paper". You are arguing from the premise that it is possible that a grown human will suddenly appear with a blank but perfectly functional brain. NOT even a "high school drop out" level brain is capable of that degree of assness.

well if you insist on using reductionist models of thought to determine the nature reality I thought it would be relevant .....

Reductionism is the philosophy of paring down concepts to their most basic forms. When did I ever do that? More than you have? With your high school drop out and your electron?

So tell us what do you perceive about consciousness - is it proof ?? And if it is perceivable to you but it is not perceivable to me does it still remain as proof?

Defensive. Sentience can be proven. And sentience is proof of consciousness. Although I am want to consider you as sapient rather than sentient. (did that make your list of insults thread? i hope so!! )

Since science is primarily concerned about elements and electrons and atoms and molecules I am not sure what you are talking about

Obviously

less so here - I haven't the foggiest what you are alluding to

Obviously

I'm telling you that the phrase DULL MATTER has NO MEANING. YOU used the term!

I think I'll make an entry to Wiki. I wish I could submit it to Encarta for permanency and posterity:

Dull Matter: Whatever Lightee uses to generate his ideas. Punto Final.

(another swing at that insults thread of yours, I personally think this one is more suited to your insults thread)

reductionism is primarily the paradigm that molecular evolutionists work out of - caution - this link contains the word ontological

1. Keep in mind that the Wiki article begins: "...These ideas can often be conflicting."

2. Again...Q will back me up here. You are pulling random writings that seem to support you, yet all you are succeeding in doing is making your posts look like a string of chaos. As well you are trying to forcibly ascribe your fallacies onto us more logical people.

I perceive through your short answers that you are running out of stupid ideas. Keep em coming, us more logical people can effortlessly deal with them.

 

[(Q)]

so you can work with equations innvolving the speed of light by slapping an extra digit on anywhere you want?

If I were the authority on the speed of light, I certainly could, if I so pleased, and YOU would have to accept it based on your own logic of axiom=authority.

Set and match.

 

[Godless]

I perceive through your short answers that you are running out of stupid ideas. Keep em coming, us more logical people can effortlessly deal with them.

Or at least get a good laugh!

 

[lightgigantic]

KennyJC

What you just said is illogical beyond even your own standards. Everything withinin this universe is material, nothing I believe can escape that fact, God or no God. I think that by using our common sense and critical thinking, 'conciousness' must obey the same principles just like any other process within the brain.

To be completely blunt with you LG, you would have to be utterly stupid to label any observable phenomenon as immaterial, even if it is something as yet not perfectly understood.

You have to understand when I use the word "material" I am referring to the movements of dull matter - like electrons and neurons - materially speaking these things don't equal consciousness - I never said the word immaterial (in the sense that it is not observable) - I said that consciousness is not a materially defined process

This proves 'conciousness' is immaterial how?

Also taken from Wiki:

The brain controls "lower" or involuntary activities such as heartbeat, respiration, and digestion - these are known as autonomic functions- as well as sensation, movement, and a variety of special senses. The brain also controls "higher" order, conscious activities, such as thought, reasoning, and abstraction. The human brain is generally regarded as more capable of these higher order activities than that of any other known species.

lower order and higher order processes still say nothing about the "I" - like saying "I" think, "I" reason, "I" abstract etc etc says nothing about what acts like a canvas (ie - the "I") for all these processes

 

[lightgigantic]

ED

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
ED
Funny - I don't recall mentioning it ”



YOUR epistemological thread lists in detail how to achieve perception of god. YOUR epistemological quality list can be achieved through avid churchgoing.

Are you like 4 years old or something?

Despite your insistence that I did mention it I still can't recall it - perhaps you will have to go back there and find out exactly where I did mention "avid church going"

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Try burning a sheet of metal with matches and you tell us ”



Lightee, again, you assume that all humans are unbelievably stupid. All of us have some sort of basic knowledge, and all of us use this common sense to come to various decisions. OBVIOUSLY the average human knows what a sheet of paper is as opposed to what a sheet of metal is EVEN IF that human does not know they are named "steel" and "paper". You are arguing from the premise that it is possible that a grown human will suddenly appear with a blank but perfectly functional brain. NOT even a "high school drop out" level brain is capable of that degree of assness.

So do you still disagree that there is a strong connection between correct process and correct material?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So tell us what do you perceive about consciousness - is it proof ?? And if it is perceivable to you but it is not perceivable to me does it still remain as proof? ”



Defensive. Sentience can be proven. And sentience is proof of consciousness. Although I am want to consider you as sapient rather than sentient. (did that make your list of insults thread? i hope so!! )

But you still didn't answer
And if it is perceivable to you but it is not perceivable to me does it still remain as proof? ”

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic

reductionism is primarily the paradigm that molecular evolutionists work out of - caution - this link contains the word ontological ”



1. Keep in mind that the Wiki article begins: "...These ideas can often be conflicting."

thats part of the problem with quantum physics
and its your problem too if you want to work out of it

2. Again...Q will back me up here. You are pulling random writings that seem to support you, yet all you are succeeding in doing is making your posts look like a string of chaos. As well you are trying to forcibly ascribe your fallacies onto us more logical people.

This is what I mean by dull matter - obviously you don't accept that term so here it is - to save a lot of confusion just tell us whether this is the scientific model you work out of to determine what qualifies as evidence or not - given your little foray into scientific example it seems to be ....

I perceive through your short answers that you are running out of stupid ideas. Keep em coming, us more logical people can effortlessly deal with them.

I am just cutting to the chase - I figured that if I type less you have less to get confused about

 

[lightgigantic]

If I were the authority on the speed of light, I certainly could, if I so pleased, and YOU would have to accept it based on your own logic of axiom=authority.

Set and match.

Actually this is what generally happens in science, like for instance newton's axioms got superceded by einsteins

 

[(Q)]

Actually this is what generally happens in science, like for instance newton's axioms got superceded by einsteins

Nope.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC
You have to understand when I use the word "material" I am referring to the movements of dull matter - like electrons and neurons - materially speaking these things don't equal consciousness - I never said the word immaterial (in the sense that it is not observable) - I said that consciousness is not a materially defined process

'Dull matter' materially speaking does not equal many things, eg. the Sun. Yet it remains obvious that every object is made up of the fundamental building blocks of the universe, therefore it is a material process like everything else.

lower order and higher order processes still say nothing about the "I" - like saying "I" think, "I" reason, "I" abstract etc etc says nothing about what acts like a canvas (ie - the "I") for all these processes

So? Can we trace the origin of the heart beat, sensation or movement either?

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
KennyJC
You have to understand when I use the word "material" I am referring to the movements of dull matter - like electrons and neurons - materially speaking these things don't equal consciousness - I never said the word immaterial (in the sense that it is not observable) - I said that consciousness is not a materially defined process ”



'Dull matter' materially speaking does not equal many things, eg. the Sun. Yet it remains obvious that every object is made up of the fundamental building blocks of the universe, therefore it is a material process like everything else.

On the contrary I think most scientists would say that the sun is composed of dull matter (find all about it here

“ lower order and higher order processes still say nothing about the "I" - like saying "I" think, "I" reason, "I" abstract etc etc says nothing about what acts like a canvas (ie - the "I") for all these processes ”



So? Can we trace the origin of the heart beat, sensation or movement either?

welll they can be traced to the brain, but the cohesive experience that gives us "I" cannot

 

[KennyJC]

welll they can be traced to the brain, but the cohesive experience that gives us "I" cannot

So instead of now hiding behind the word 'conciousness', it is now 'I'?

Personality, thought, emotion, memories are all linked to the brain as well. I think that very well covers your vague use of the word "I".

 

[superluminal]

welll they can be traced to the brain, but the cohesive experience that gives us "I" cannot

Hmmm. Well then, let's just remove some key parts of your brain and see what happens to your "I".

 

[superluminal]

Actually this is what generally happens in science, like for instance newton's axioms got superceded by einsteins

Quit saying things that blatantly demonstrate your ignorance. It makes me feel bad for you.

1) What "axioms" are you talking about? An axiom is a fundamental statement that is taken as true without question or deeper proof.

2) Newtons laws are in no way "superseeded" by Einsteins. They are still perfectly valid under appropriate conditions (i.e. in any inertial frame).

 

[Nickelodeon]

2) Newtons laws are in no way "superseeded" by Einsteins. They are still perfectly valid under appropriate conditions (i.e. in any inertial frame).

In fact they sent man to the moon using Newtons Laws, as it was pointless using Einstein at such slow speeds. If it was wrong they would have missed the moon...

 

[superluminal]

In fact they sent man to the moon using Newtons Laws, as it was pointless using Einstein at such slow speeds. If it was wrong they would have missed the moon...

You got it.