Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

I have a life to look for explanations but then one has to engage with what one has encountered.

As CS has pointed out.....the explanation is not the experience.

True. But as science has demonstrated, human experience is unreliable.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have a life to look for explanations but then one has to engage with what one has encountered.

As CS has pointed out.....the explanation is not the experience.

True. But as science has demonstrated, human experience is unreliable.

O.

In all respects?

I think Christianity is well aware of moral unreliability.

[Outrider]

I have a life to look for explanations but then one has to engage with what one has encountered.

As CS has pointed out.....the explanation is not the experience.

True. But as science has demonstrated, human experience is unreliable.

O.

In all respects?

I think Christianity is well aware of moral unreliability.

Who said anything about moral? People are just not especially good at correctly categorising or recalling their experiences. People are not particularly good at identifying the components of their experiences.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have a life to look for explanations but then one has to engage with what one has encountered.

As CS has pointed out.....the explanation is not the experience.

True. But as science has demonstrated, human experience is unreliable.

O.

In all respects?

I think Christianity is well aware of moral unreliability.

Who said anything about moral? People are just not especially good at correctly categorising or recalling their experiences. People are not particularly good at identifying the components of their experiences.

O.

Might be true for ''one of'' instances.
However I think if we take your theory of the extent of psychological incompetence to it's logical conclusion we will end up with a cosmic case of OCD.

[Outrider]

Might be true for ''one of'' instances.

No, people are just notoriously bad. We're better at identifying changes than we are just absolute assessments - particularly, but not exclusively, for one-off events.

However I think if we take your theory of the extent of psychological incompetence to it's logical conclusion we will end up with a cosmic case of OCD.

No, we just replace subjective judgement and interpretation with accurate recordings and measurements when it's important.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Might be true for ''one of'' instances.

No, people are just notoriously bad. We're better at identifying changes than we are just absolute assessments - particularly, but not exclusively, for one-off events.

However I think if we take your theory of the extent of psychological incompetence to it's logical conclusion we will end up with a cosmic case of OCD.

No, we just replace subjective judgement and interpretation with accurate recordings and measurements when it's important.

O.

Sorry...are you extolling the virtues of reductionism here.

We have to trust that our judgments fit our environment whatever that environment that is. Tools for the job and all that.

[Outrider]

We have to trust that our judgments fit our environment whatever that environment that is. Tools for the job and all that.

We do? Where's that rule written? We have to be aware of our limitations, and only depend on our own senses when either the limitations are within tolerable boundaries or the implications of being wrong aren't that significant.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We have to trust that our judgments fit our environment whatever that environment that is. Tools for the job and all that.

We do? Where's that rule written? We have to be aware of our limitations, and only depend on our own senses when either the limitations are within tolerable boundaries or the implications of being wrong aren't that significant.

O.

And that contradicts with what I've said How?

[Outrider]

We have to trust that our judgments fit our environment whatever that environment that is. Tools for the job and all that.

We do? Where's that rule written? We have to be aware of our limitations, and only depend on our own senses when either the limitations are within tolerable boundaries or the implications of being wrong aren't that significant.

O.

And that contradicts with what I've said How?

The bit where you appear willing to accept our limited and unreliable sensory capacity when the issue is significant.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We have to trust that our judgments fit our environment whatever that environment that is. Tools for the job and all that.

We do? Where's that rule written? We have to be aware of our limitations, and only depend on our own senses when either the limitations are within tolerable boundaries or the implications of being wrong aren't that significant.

O.

And that contradicts with what I've said How?

The bit where you appear willing to accept our limited and unreliable sensory capacity when the issue is significant.

O.

So it's limited AND unreliable? What sensory capacity is used to discern a non material God?

[Outrider]

We have to trust that our judgments fit our environment whatever that environment that is. Tools for the job and all that.

We do? Where's that rule written? We have to be aware of our limitations, and only depend on our own senses when either the limitations are within tolerable boundaries or the implications of being wrong aren't that significant.

O.

And that contradicts with what I've said How?

The bit where you appear willing to accept our limited and unreliable sensory capacity when the issue is significant.

O.

So it's limited AND unreliable? What sensory capacity is used to discern a non material God?

No idea, you tell me, you were the one citing it as 'an experience'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We have to trust that our judgments fit our environment whatever that environment that is. Tools for the job and all that.

We do? Where's that rule written? We have to be aware of our limitations, and only depend on our own senses when either the limitations are within tolerable boundaries or the implications of being wrong aren't that significant.

O.

And that contradicts with what I've said How?

The bit where you appear willing to accept our limited and unreliable sensory capacity when the issue is significant.

O.

So it's limited AND unreliable? What sensory capacity is used to discern a non material God?

No idea, you tell me, you were the one citing it as 'an experience'.

O.

The God detector.

[Outrider]

We have to trust that our judgments fit our environment whatever that environment that is. Tools for the job and all that.

We do? Where's that rule written? We have to be aware of our limitations, and only depend on our own senses when either the limitations are within tolerable boundaries or the implications of being wrong aren't that significant.

O.

And that contradicts with what I've said How?

The bit where you appear willing to accept our limited and unreliable sensory capacity when the issue is significant.

O.

So it's limited AND unreliable? What sensory capacity is used to discern a non material God?

No idea, you tell me, you were the one citing it as 'an experience'.

O.

The God detector.

And how do you differentiate the sensation of 'The God Detector'  prompted by a god from the sensation of 'The God Detector' prompted by an hallucination of a god?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We have to trust that our judgments fit our environment whatever that environment that is. Tools for the job and all that.

We do? Where's that rule written? We have to be aware of our limitations, and only depend on our own senses when either the limitations are within tolerable boundaries or the implications of being wrong aren't that significant.

O.

And that contradicts with what I've said How?

The bit where you appear willing to accept our limited and unreliable sensory capacity when the issue is significant.

O.

So it's limited AND unreliable? What sensory capacity is used to discern a non material God?

No idea, you tell me, you were the one citing it as 'an experience'.

O.

The God detector.

And how do you differentiate the sensation of 'The God Detector'  prompted by a god from the sensation of 'The God Detector' prompted by an hallucination of a god?

O.

So you acknowledge that hallucinations are of things that exist.

Can you hallucinate with a non matter/energy based sense?

We have a sense of maths which isn't subjective nor matter/energy and have a way of testing competence in that that are internal to maths.

[Outrider]

So you acknowledge that hallucinations are of things that exist.

No, I acknowledge that some hallucinations are of things that exist, and some are of things that don't exist - you'll recall the discussion of M C Escher earlier in the thread.

Can you hallucinate with a non matter/energy based sense?

Can you define in any meaningful sense a non-matter/energy based anything, sense or otherwise?

We have a sense of maths which isn't subjective nor matter/energy and have a way of testing competence in that that are internal to maths.

No, we have a concept of maths, not a sense. We deduce the concept from sensory information of actual things which we quantify with the conceptualisation of numbers and quantity.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you acknowledge that hallucinations are of things that exist.

No, I acknowledge that some hallucinations are of things that exist, and some are of things that don't exist - you'll recall the discussion of M C Escher earlier in the thread.

Can you hallucinate with a non matter/energy based sense?

Can you define in any meaningful sense a non-matter/energy based anything, sense or otherwise?

We have a sense of maths which isn't subjective nor matter/energy and have a way of testing competence in that that are internal to maths.

No, we have a concept of maths, not a sense. We deduce the concept from sensory information of actual things which we quantify with the conceptualisation of numbers and quantity.

O.

I wasn't convinced by the notion of a mathematical illusion.
Physical illusion yes, mathematical illusion, no.

Since complex maths must be going on in some sense in the cerebellum in order for accuracy to be achieved in movement and catching etc. I disagree with your maths purely as a conception as well.

[Outrider]

I wasn't convinced by the notion of a mathematical illusion. Physical illusion yes, mathematical illusion, no.

It was a demonstration of a sensory illusion - your senses are deceived into attempting to perceive an object that cannot exist.

Since complex maths must be going on in some sense in the cerebellum in order for accuracy to be achieved in movement and catching etc. I disagree with your maths purely as a conception as well.

Then show me a 'two'. Show me how we sense a 'two'.

We can sense things, and conceptualise them as individual units, multiple counts of individual units and then have a concept that there are two of something, but how do we sense a 'two'?

Fairly primitive animals co-ordinate complex movements - they certainly aren't capable of complex mathematics. What they can do is co-ordinate, which can be simulated with complex mathematics.

People who cannot derive a parabolic arc of an object under the influence of gravity can, nevertheless, catch a ball. They aren't capable of complex mathematics, but they have trained their muscle-memory to co-ordinate with their visual receptors. People don't do the maths to catch a ball, but mathematicians can describe it mathematically.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wasn't convinced by the notion of a mathematical illusion. Physical illusion yes, mathematical illusion, no.

It was a demonstration of a sensory illusion - your senses are deceived into attempting to perceive an object that cannot exist.

Since complex maths must be going on in some sense in the cerebellum in order for accuracy to be achieved in movement and catching etc. I disagree with your maths purely as a conception as well.

Then show me a 'two'. Show me how we sense a 'two'.

We can sense things, and conceptualise them as individual units, multiple counts of individual units and then have a concept that there are two of something, but how do we sense a 'two'?

Fairly primitive animals co-ordinate complex movements - they certainly aren't capable of complex mathematics. What they can do is co-ordinate, which can be simulated with complex mathematics.

People who cannot derive a parabolic arc of an object under the influence of gravity can, nevertheless, catch a ball. They aren't capable of complex mathematics, but they have trained their muscle-memory to co-ordinate with their visual receptors. People don't do the maths to catch a ball, but mathematicians can describe it mathematically.

O.

And yet there must be a mechanism which leads to accuracy in catching but which we are not conscious of working.

[Outrider]

And yet there must be a mechanism which leads to accuracy in catching but which we are not conscious of working.

And the mechanism is mathematical, but that does not make mathematics a thing that can be sensed, it still makes it a conceptualisation with which other sensory impressions can be categorised.

O.

[Maeght]

The very fact that Leonard CAN choose one way or the other is proof positive of his ability to do do. If he didn't have free will he would be obliged to follow his nature/nurture command.

Can he actually choose, though? How do we test that, in a given number of identical scenarios, Leonard would select differently?

I've no idea how you could test it, I simply know I can select an option. Let me turn the question back on you ... how do you test that he wouldn't select differently?

That there are other options that could be taken isn't the same thing as saying that, at that moment, in that place, with that particular set of circumstances and influences, Leonard was actually capable of choosing one of the other options available, even though he was aware of them. How do we know that Leonard would not inevitably resort to the same option each and every time?

You don't, because he is capable of choosing otherwise. 



You can't possibly know what my option will be because you are not me.

That's the point really - at present I don't see anyway of demonstrating whether we have freewill or not - although some recent research suggests our apparent choices are determined by our sub conscious without us realising, but that research is early days stuff as yet. To state that we do and to then use this a a basis for the existence of something such as the soul - as Alan does - needs to be challenged, hence my posts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet there must be a mechanism which leads to accuracy in catching but which we are not conscious of working.

And the mechanism is mathematical, but that does not make mathematics a thing that can be sensed, it still makes it a conceptualisation with which other sensory impressions can be categorised.

O.

Are you saying it is not a sense because it is not one of the five senses?

[Leonard James]

That's the point really - at present I don't see anyway of demonstrating whether we have freewill or not - although some recent research suggests our apparent choices are determined by our sub conscious without us realising, but that research is early days stuff as yet.

But will you at least admit that whatever choice our subconscious makes and inclines us to take, we can always override it and not do so? For me that makes the existence of free will obvious.

To state that we do and to then use this a a basis for the existence of something such as the soul - as Alan does - needs to be challenged, hence my posts.

Once again I agree entirely. I believe that the ability to chose between options (free will) arose at some point in evolution either as a survival or a reproductive mechanism.

There is no reason to guess at a supernatural explanation when a natural one is staring us in the face. I am sure that Alan's need to put a god in as the explanation stems from the fact that he thinks his life would be meaningless without "God". I seem to remember him using those very words. That may be true for him, of course, but many of us are quite capable of finding meaning and purpose in life without such a belief.

[Maeght]

That's the point really - at present I don't see anyway of demonstrating whether we have freewill or not - although some recent research suggests our apparent choices are determined by our sub conscious without us realising, but that research is early days stuff as yet.

But will you at least admit that whatever choice our subconscious makes and inclines us to take, we can always override it and not do so? For me that makes the existence of free will obvious.

Not at all obvious if the process by which we make that choice is also dependent on our nature/nurture. It may reach a different conclusion than the sub conscious but is not necessarily any more free. Isn't that point obvious?

[Maeght]

Once again I agree entirely. I believe that the ability to chose between options (free will) arose at some point in evolution either as a survival or a reproductive mechanism.

I would agree, except on the choice of the term freewill.

There is no reason to guess at a supernatural explanation when a natural one is staring us in the face.

Or if freewill doesn't exist of course.

I am sure that Alan's need to put a god in as the explanation stems from the fact that he thinks his life would be meaningless without "God". I seem to remember him using those very words. That may be true for him, of course, but many of us are quite capable of finding meaning and purpose in life without such a belief.

It seems to be vital that people choose whether to believe in God or not so rather than that they just don't have a belief. All tied up with his theology but is beyond me.

[Leonard James]

Not at all obvious if the process by which we make that choice is also dependent on our nature/nurture. It may reach a different conclusion than the sub conscious but is not necessarily any more free. Isn't that point obvious?

No, it isn't. The conscious mind is able to either obey its nature/nurture tendency or do otherwise. Always! You are never obliged to make a certain choice ... you can always do otherwise.

We shall just have to agree to disagree.