Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Of course our brains can integrate information, just as computers can.  The problem comes with defining how we can be aware of the processes of integration.

That's what our awareness is, basically, integrated sensory information; you are over complicating things.  We are not aware of the process of integration, that is the really cool thing, the brain does all that subliminally, so what we are left with is an integrated composited awareness of external and internal sensory information.

[wigginhall]

Of course our brains can integrate information, just as computers can.  The problem comes with defining how we can be aware of the processes of integration.

And how do you explain it?  I mean, explain it, not refer to some vague idea which is unsubstantiated.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

That's what our awareness is, basically, integrated sensory information; you are over complicating things.  We are not aware of the process of integration, that is the really cool thing, the brain does all that subliminally, so what we are left with is an integrated composited awareness of external and internal sensory information.

Cheers, an integrated composited awareness, not complicated at all!

Latest scientific findings say that as we get older we find it harder to recognise sarcasm

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course our brains can integrate information, just as computers can.  The problem comes with defining how we can be aware of the processes of integration.

Bit rich isn't it you of all people complaining about a definitional problem what with your totally undefined "God", "Satan", "soul" etc but anyways, that's not the problem in any case. You seem to think that awareness is some kind of magic pixie dust that must somehow exist outside of the material. It isn't; while there's much work to be done to understand it, the basic phenomenon of emergence - ie, that complex outcomes emerge from simple components - is well understood and there's no reason to exempt awareness from the general principle.   

You assume a "that's hard, therefore a top down designer" paradigm whereas most complexity we're aware of emerges from the bottom up: ant colonies, learning software, urban growth, you name it - it all happen because relatively stupid components produce complex results with no plan, purpose or overarching design involved. Why not at least try to read about it before posting the same mistakes here over and over again? 

[wigginhall]

Very good summary, blue, 'that's hard, therefore a top-down designer'.   

[wigginhall]

That's what our awareness is, basically, integrated sensory information; you are over complicating things.  We are not aware of the process of integration, that is the really cool thing, the brain does all that subliminally, so what we are left with is an integrated composited awareness of external and internal sensory information.

Excellent point.  I remember this from the study of language acquisition in children, that it goes on effortlessly and unconsciously, with no need for instruction really.   If you move to an Arab country with a young child, it will acquire Arabic without problems, as long as it has enough exposure.   And to work out the processes whereby this happens is quite difficult.   Maybe it's the soul?

[Dicky Underpants]

Excellent point.  I remember this from the study of language acquisition in children, that it goes on effortlessly and unconsciously, with no need for instruction really.   If you move to an Arab country with a young child, it will acquire Arabic without problems, as long as it has enough exposure.   And to work out the processes whereby this happens is quite difficult.   Maybe it's the soul?

Which then proceeds to die off rather rapidly, as we find when we have to learn declensions, conjugations and the gender of nouns in foreign languages in our teens (I was quite good at these things, but presumably my 1,2,and 3 year old self was rather better). It certainly gets worse decades later, as I've realised to my cost when I rashly thought I'd like to learn Polish.

[wigginhall]

Which then proceeds to die off rather rapidly, as we find when we have to learn declensions, conjugations and the gender of nouns in foreign languages in our teens (I was quite good at these things, but presumably my 1,2,and 3 year old self was rather better). It certainly gets worse decades later, as I've realised to my cost when I rashly thought I'd like to learn Polish.

Yes, there's a cut-off point about the time of puberty.  Probably something to do with brain plasticity, but even children need plenty of exposure to languages.   I'm not sure how it works with teaching a language to kids, as normally they just acquire it by being immersed in it, playing with other kids, and so on.   And they can do it with multiple languages, I think.  Bilingualism is dead easy, when you're eight.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

...as I've realised to my cost when I rashly thought I'd like to learn Polish.

I can help you with that. Do you remember the 1980s/90s American tennis player Jim Courier?

You do? Good. Well, if you say "Jim Courier" reasonably quickly it approximates to the Polish for "thank you".

You're welcome ; - )   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Yes it does, but only in VladWorld (concessions for the terminally bewildered) where you so fundamentally re-define these terms to suit your purpose that you may as well argue that cheese is ideal for making motorway bridges because of its well-known tensile strength.

Presumably the cognitive dissonance you'd experience if ever you finally grasped what these terms actually mean is such that your head would explode, but there it is nonetheless - as I said, probably best just to keep kidding yourself therefore even when it comes at the price of wrecking what little credibility you had left.   

Mere projection of your filthy little habit in fact you were very recently pulled up by Nearly Sane for redefinition.

Please give your definition of philosophical materialism so we can ''Feed on it's flesh'' once again and have a good laugh at your expense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Mere projection of your filthy little habit in fact you were very recently pulled up by Nearly Sane for redefinition.

Not true (the disagreement wasn't definitional but was about exact vs commonplace usage), and the only "filthy little habit" here is your pathological dishonesty. There are countless posts in which I've explained your mistake only for you repeatedly to lie about the explanation, so why bother lying yet again about something so easily checkable?

It's one thing being a liar, but an incompetent one? Oh well, it's your call I guess.

Please give your definition of philosophical materialism so we can ''Feed on it's flesh'' once again and have a good laugh at your expense.

Um, first you're the one making the claim so it's up to you to give us your definition I'd have thought.

And second, I have done - many times in fact and every time you've just lied about what I have said. Why would I want to repeat the process?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Not true (the disagreement wasn't definitional but was about exact vs commonplace usage), and the only "filthy little habit" here is your pathological dishonesty. There are countless posts in which I've explained your mistake only for you repeatedly to lie about the explanation, so why bother lying yet again about something so easily checkable?

It's one thing being a liar, but an incompetent one? Oh well, it's your call I guess.

Um, first you're the one making the claim so it's up to you to give us your definition I'd have thought.

And second, I have done - many times in fact and every time you've just lied about what I have said. Why would I want to repeat the process?

No............... you are proposing my definition of philosophical materialism is incorrect therefore it is up to you to give your definition.

[Sassy]

So Jane Goodall can deploy the argument from personal incredulity just the same as you can Alan - is this supposed to be news or something? Her bad reasons for believing in God seem to be the same as yours - no wonder you quote her.

You may be interested (and disappointed) to know that in September 2010 she said: "I don't have any idea of who or what God is. But I do believe in some great spiritual power. I feel it particularly when I'm out in nature. It's just something that's bigger and stronger than what I am or what anybody is. I feel it. And it's enough for me."

So she purports to believe in something she has no idea about. Not the first, is she?

God is that person who makes us realise that we are not alone and that if man was to ignore Gods existence then evil could prosper and the most horrific events can become reality. In history everyone from Adam to the present day believers can see the reality of Gods love making a difference in the world.
What I would like to know is what made your love grow so cold you would ignore such evils so you do not have to believe?

[Leonard James]

What I would like to know is what made your love grow so cold you would ignore such evils so you do not have to believe?

What I would like to know is what makes any educated person continue to believe the daft stuff invented by men in an age when they knew no better.

There is no evidence for your stupid remark, and plenty of evidence that atheists are capable of as much love and empathy as any god follower.

Of course there have been evil non-believers, just as there have been evil believers, but atheists by and large condemn wrong-doing just as much as believers ... not because "God" tells them to but because they have the intelligence to work it out for themselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course there have been evil non-believers, just as there have been evil believers, but atheists by and large condemn wrong-doing just as much as believers ...

...................Yes....... from a pretty self righteous viewpoint

[Maeght]

What I would like to know is what made your love grow so cold you would ignore such evils so you do not have to believe?

What 'evils' and who is ignoring them Sassy?

[floo]

God is that person who makes us realise that we are not alone and that if man was to ignore Gods existence then evil could prosper and the most horrific events can become reality. In history everyone from Adam to the present day believers can see the reality of Gods love making a difference in the world.
What I would like to know is what made your love grow so cold you would ignore such evils so you do not have to believe?

Your version of the deity created evil!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

No............... you are proposing my definition of philosophical materialism is incorrect therefore it is up to you to give your definition.

Actually it isn't - you use it, you tell us what you mean by it - especially as the argument you try to build on it fundamentally corrupts its actual meaning.

Either way though, your profound dishonesty has exited you from the game in any case. I've told you many, many times where you go wrong only for you you to reply with your standard, "Oh so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then" type mendacity and I have no appetite to get dragged back into that endless loop.

It's simple enough: your argument is fundamentally hopeless because it relies for its force on your personal redefinition of the terms you use to support it. If you don't believe me, go back to the many explanation I've given you, apologise for your lying replies and then - finally - at least attempt to address the rebuttals to your position.

Tell you what, I'll even give you a clue: materialism is probabilistic, not absolutist as you wrongly assert...

[Outrider]

God is that person who makes us realise that we are not alone

An easy mistake to make, but I think you're confusing my wife with God.

and that if man was to ignore Gods existence then evil could prosper

Yet men claiming God's existence perpetrate evils great and small, every day.

In history everyone from Adam to the present day believers can see the reality of Gods love making a difference in the world.

From the mass shooting in a hotel in Ouagadougou yesterday, through to the demands of African churches that the Anglican communion should punish the Episcopal churches for not being homophobic enough - God's love making a difference in the world. I'll pass, thanks.

What I would like to know is what made your love grow so cold you would ignore such evils so you do not have to believe?

What made your faith so blind that you fail to see?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Actually it isn't - you use it, you tell us what you mean by it - especially as the argument you try to build on it fundamentally corrupts its actual meaning.

Either way though, your profound dishonesty has exited you from the game in any case. I've told you many, many times where you go wrong only for you you to reply with your standard, "Oh so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then" type mendacity and I have no appetite to get dragged back into that endless loop.

It's simple enough: your argument is fundamentally hopeless because it relies for its force on your redefinition of the terms you use to support it. If you don't believe me, go back too the many explanation I've given you, apologise for your lying replies and then - finally - at least attempt to address the rebuttals to your position.

Tell you what, I'll even give you a clue: materialism is probabilistic, not absolutist as you wrongly assert...

So what you are saying is my definition isn't incorrect but it is?

Materialism is probabilistic? Yes, about material things since according to it's own ontological punt....There is nothing else.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

So what you are saying is my definition isn't incorrect but it is?

Funny innit - I tell you that there's no point in speaking to you because you'll only lie about what I've said and as if by magic in your very next post you lie about what I said...

Materialism is probabilistic? Yes, about material things since according to it's own ontological punt....There is nothing else.

Still wrong. Keep trying though...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Funny innit - I tell you that there's no point in speaking to you because you'll only lie about what I've said and as if by magic in your very next post you lie about what I said...

Still wrong. Keep trying though...

No lie....I just can't make out why you say my definition is correct and then you seem to me to go on to criticise it.

My definition is that it takes an ontological punt in it's philosophical version.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Did Shaker write that he was going to make it over to the science section? Well there's his exercise for the day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

No lie....I just can't make out why you say my definition is correct and then you seem to me to go on to criticise it.

I don't. Good grief - what I said was that it was correct ONLY if anyone accepted your personal redefinitions of the terms on which it relies, which no-one does.

My definition is that it takes an ontological punt in it's philosophical version.

No, your definition relies on the odd notion that materialism claims that the material is all there is, whereas in fact what it says is that the material is all there verifiably is - and moreover that the verification is probabilistic in nature. There might be anything - even your god included (assuming you ever come up with a coherent meaning for "god") but as no-one has ever managed a means of verification for such claims there's nothing to address.

Really, why is this so difficult for you?   

(Cue Vlad's next, "Oh so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then" yada yada mendacity...)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

I don't. Good grief - what I said was that it was correct ONLY if anyone accepted your personal redefinitions of the terms on which it relies, which no-one does.

No, your definition relies on the odd notion that materialism claims that the material is all there is, whereas in fact what it says is that the material is all there verifiably is - and moreover that the verification is probabilistic in nature. There might be anything - even your god included (assuming you ever come up with a coherent meaning for "god") but as no-one has ever managed a means of verification for such claims there's nothing to address.

Really, why is this so difficult for you?   

(Cue Vlad's next, "Oh so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then" yada yada mendacity...)

Actually Hillside I was going to ask why you have introduced probability into the definition of philosophical materialism......particularly after you had been warned that PM is an ontological statement. In PM there is only material........no probability about it.