Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,744 Year: 4,001/9,624 Month: 872/974 Week: 199/286 Day: 6/109 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Delusions of Grandeur?
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 20 of 82 (698465)
05-07-2013 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-06-2013 9:45 PM


Re: The God Hypothesis Revisited
SA writes:
I am saying when you watch Atheist like Dawkins and Dennett in debate or better yet read their books you will get the distinct impression they think that complete total Atheism solves everything . That science as it is now in biology and evolution and neuroscience on the brain explains everything to do with life and consciousness.
And these philosophers and scientist believe that they personally have solved everything. Dennet has his book Consciousness Explained and Dawkins has The God Delusion. So there is no further reason to look into the nature of reality or God or ask about a soul because Science and Atheism and Materialism covers anything and everything you could or would want to know. There are no questions left to ask except questions in details. That is the Delusion of Grandeur I am talking about.
I think you have missed the point being made by Dawkins, Dennet et al. The claim is not that science and atheism have somehow answered every question, solved every problem and explained everything that there is to possibly explain. Very far from it in fact.
The point being made by this group is, I think, twofold: 1) Some question are inherently nonsensical unless you make the unwarranted assumption that there is some sort of human-like-but-cosmically-scaled-conscious-intent involved. 2) If we are to gain answers to the remaining big questions then a scientific approach is the only demonstrably reliable and thus sensible way forwards. Invoking mystical conscious intelligent entities (no matter how ambiguously defined they may be) is as pointless and anthropomorphic as it always has been.
So the "delusions of grandeur" you are seeing aren't really there in the way you are suggesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-06-2013 9:45 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 26 of 82 (698644)
05-08-2013 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-07-2013 4:46 PM


Re: So Far So Good
SA writes:
God is a "mystical" consciousness ? Not sure what is meant here so I can not clarify.
Is this God you speak of conscious? Is this God you speak of intelligent?
Does this God you speak of have a physical brain of any sort? Or is it a sort of ethereal consciousness immaterially existing in some way?
Please clarify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-07-2013 4:46 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 31 of 82 (698847)
05-10-2013 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-09-2013 6:35 PM


No need for invisible men..
The problem here is that you have traded in one invisible man hypothesis for another.
You deride theists for advocating an invisible man in the sky. Yet your "pantheism" involves multiple invisible men (AKA "souls") as the ethereal consciousness that is each of us. Why you think your brand of invisible man hypothesis is any less worthy of derision than any other remains unclear.
As long as you are invoking an invisible man hypothesis (whatever it's particular form) you are going to get short shrift from the likes of Dawkins and Dennett who are advocating that such un-evidenced notions be discarded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-09-2013 6:35 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-11-2013 8:59 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 82 (699004)
05-13-2013 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-11-2013 8:59 PM


Re: No need for invisible men..
As long as you are invoking the invisible man hypothesis in one form or another you belong over with the theists.
SA writes:
Using your argument nothing not visible to the human eye or not easily understood can actually exist.
Idiotically wrong.
SA writes:
1. God is invisible
It depends of course which god we are talking about. But most modern notions of God conform to the archetype of the invisible man of the invisible man hypothesis.
SA writes:
2. The Wind is invisible
No it's not. Pressure fronts and air. No invisible men need apply.
SA writes:
3. Souls are invisible
Souls are indeed an example of the invisible man hypothesis. The form of said hypothesis where it is presumed by the advocate that they themselves are an invisible man.
SA writes:
4. Quanta are invisible
Wrong again. Various quanta have been scientifically detected. Photons most obviously of all can hardly be decribed as "invisible". Again - No need for invisible men.
SA writes:
5. God does not exist
I am still baffled as to why you are happy to deride one invisible man hypothesis whilst advocating another.
SA writes:
Therefore the soul the wind and quanta are all imaginary.
The soul is an example of the invisible man hypothesis. Wind and quanta obviously are not....
SA writes:
But my awareness exist independent of any thoughts or emotions. Thoughts come and go but I am not my thoughts. Emotions can affect my behavior but I can also act independently of them or even modify them. Also there is not just one state of mind with emotions being too much of this chemical or too little of that chemical.
If I plunge a screwdriver through your brain such that all brain activity ceases - Where is this "you", this awareness you speak of then?
Does it still exist? How? Where? What indictaions are there of any such disembodied consciousnesses?
SA writes:
All real philosophers acknowledge the hard problem of consciousness.
Sure. But the question remains as to why anyone thinks yet another invisble man hypothesis provides any more answer to this problem than any other questions humanity has erroneously deployed similar invisible man answers to in the past.
As long as you are invoking the invisible man hypothesis in one form or another you belong over with the theists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-11-2013 8:59 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 42 of 82 (699093)
05-14-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
05-14-2013 12:16 PM


Re: Wishful Thinking?
CS writes:
Fuuuck... what's next? Do we have to sit in the back of the bus?
Who even let you on the bus? STOP the bus.
All theists off the bus now please. This bus is for those with a one way ticket to the promised land of rationality and reason. No return trips. No passengers without a signed copy of the 'God Delusion' upon their person.
I said - Get off the bus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 12:29 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 46 of 82 (699101)
05-14-2013 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
05-14-2013 12:29 PM


The Good Book..
I shall simply quote from the 'Good Book' as it shall hereafter be known...
quote:
Let us remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think about doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism."
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Amen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-14-2013 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 82 (699161)
05-15-2013 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-14-2013 7:07 PM


Re: The Hard Problem
I think most here are familiar with the problem at hand.
The complaint being directed at you is that this "god" you speak of is essentially a god of the gaps argument laden with as much woo as any other such argument. We don't scientifically have an understanding of consciousness so you think you can just fill it with whatever unevidenced mumbo-jumbo floats your particular boat. No different in nature as an argument and no more legitimate than the god of the gaps arguments trotted out by conventional theists. Yes yes - I know you are going to tell me that yours is not a personal god and that yours is not a god borne of religion - Blah blah blah. We know. We get it.
But simply defining "god" as "Not what those theists believe" but instead some vague and ambiguous cosmic consciousness doesn't really make any difference in the assessment of your ideas as blatant woo.
SA writes:
Reactions to the hard problem range from an outright denial of the issue to naturalistic reduction to panpsychism (the claim that everything is conscious to some degree) to full-blown mind-body dualism.
So let's find out where you lie on this scale.
Do you think consciousness can exist in the absence of a physical brain?
If I were to repeatedly plunge a screwdriver into your brian until all brain activity were to cease what, if any, effect do you think this would have on your consciousness?
If you agree that it would have an effect - Why do you think it would have an effect? What is the relationship between physical brians and consciousness as far as you are concerned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-14-2013 7:07 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 56 of 82 (699200)
05-15-2013 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-15-2013 5:53 PM


Brains
SA writes:
But people come back from death in hospitals all the time.
I am unaware of anyone ever having regained consciousness after their brain starts to decompose or is removed during autopsy. To the best of my knowledge the presence of a functioning brain is rather important component of conscious beings. Is this wrong?
Do you think consciousness can exist in the absence of a physical brain?
SA writes:
Am I my body? No.
If I were to repeatedly plunge a screwdriver into your brain until all brain activity were to cease and your physical brain was nothing more than a mushy puddle of goo what, if any, effect do you think this would have on your consciousness?
If you agree that it would have an effect - Why do you think it would have an effect? What is the relationship between physical brains and consciousness as far as you are concerned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-15-2013 5:53 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 59 of 82 (699242)
05-16-2013 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by AZPaul3
05-15-2013 6:50 PM


Re: Nothing Special
AZ writes:
I wonder if it does the crossword?
More likely Sodoku.
God after all is a mathematician...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 05-15-2013 6:50 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 05-16-2013 10:42 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 63 by Omnivorous, posted 05-16-2013 9:28 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 61 of 82 (699249)
05-16-2013 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by AZPaul3
05-16-2013 10:42 AM


Re: Nothing Special
AZ writes:
Misogynistic SOB because he can't get a girl because he doesn't bathe and stinks real bad.
Girl? What's a "girl".....?
(***Straggler adjusts his pop bottle specs, strokes his pocket protector full of pencils and tries to surreptitiously waft away the stench of unwashed Y fronts***)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 05-16-2013 10:42 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AZPaul3, posted 05-16-2013 11:47 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(4)
Message 64 of 82 (699309)
05-17-2013 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-15-2013 6:29 PM


Materialist Machinations
If we are to assess the hard problem of consciousness within a quantum mechanical paradigm we must first disentangle the issue of entanglement from the issue of decoherence in order to establish a coherent metaphysical response to unjustifiable physicalist assumptions. Only then can the materialistic hegemony be challenged sufficiently for the discombobulated mind of the materialist to offer itself as evidence of the separation of mind and body. After all how can one experience such a superposition of multiple mental states but wholly subjectively? In the face of such conclusivity even the most ardent materialist will be forced to confront the state-variable orthogonality of awareness as a function of consciousness rather than mere neural activity. So how do we achieve this end? The key here lies at the quantum-classical boundary and the mind-body boundary. Can a superposition of minds be expressed in terms of the phase angle of the id and the ego and if so will the collapse of the wave function equate to a rotationally symmetric disambiguation of shared awareness? The answer emphatically is — Yes. Because the internal act of subjectively observing one’s own conscious experience results in the collapse of the integrated wave function such that multiple individual minds emerge from the disentangled whole. Evidently such separation has an inherently probabilistic component as well as temporal, as opposed to instantaneous, aspect. This brief period of semi-superposition equates to what is commonly referred to as shared experience resulting in the metaphysical fact that objectivity is a functional representation of collectively achieved subjectivity. So now we see that the only way to maintain the materialist paradigm is to deny that the orthogonal compatibility of disentangled decoherent minds can exist. Or — In other words — The materialist finds themselves necessarily denying the existence of objectivity itself. Objectivity - The very foundation upon which the materialist call for objective evidence is founded. Thus the materialist holds a contradictory and logically indefensible position the very cognitive dissonance of which serves to conclusively exemplify the separation between mind and body. Cogito ergo sum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-15-2013 6:29 PM Spiritual Anarchist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AZPaul3, posted 05-17-2013 12:12 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 74 of 82 (699906)
05-28-2013 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Spiritual Anarchist
05-24-2013 7:31 PM


Re: Dawkins God Delusion
Whether it be "supreme source" or "souls" the objections to your assertions will be basically the same. But it looks like nobody can be bothered anymore.
Frankly I thought that mrnobody and yourself were the same person. It certainly looks like you are now having a conversation with yourself.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-24-2013 7:31 PM Spiritual Anarchist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Spiritual Anarchist, posted 05-29-2013 11:05 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024