Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Something like this god idea, an artificial construct, constructed by others and you've adopted it into your mind?

ippy

So what you are saying is that I constructed God myself?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Really ? I believe it has been most successful in demonstrating the lack of Phlogiston.

Then, as so often, you believe wrongly. "Science" has merely examined the claims made for Phlogiston and found then to be inadequate.   

On another matter if science is unhappy with the lack of soul....

Science can't be "unhappy" with anything, and even if it could be it would in any case be indifferent to claims of a "soul", as it is to claims of leprechauns - for exactly the same reasons.

....Is it any happier with the term Illusion of self?

See above. If the findings of neuroscience imply that the common, subjective interpretation of "free" will are wrong - and they do - then yes, it's "happy" as you would put it to go where the evidence leads.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

So what you are saying is that I constructed God myself?

More likely just bought into the god that others had constructed (and that just happened to be the one most proximate to you in time and place), but essentially yes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

There isn't one. The schtick depends entirely on your straw men versions of these things, which is why the rest of us can safely ignore it.

Science doesn't evidence the lack of anything - especially when those "anythings" are deliberately set up so as to be beyond the purview of science. Rather it examines the claims some make and determines whether other not here's sufficient evidence to treat them as more probably true than not.   

Another straw man - no-one suggest that science will "evidence the lack of" something for which there's no definition, no logical case and no evidence to examine.

Presumably that meant something in your head when you typed it?

Crikey you came in from out of the sun there....If I didn't know better I would have thought you were trying to deflect Outrider and Ippy from making an arse of themselves trying to argue that the self is an artificial construct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Something like this god idea, an artificial construct, constructed by others and you've adopted it into your mind?

ippy

Blimey......artificial constructs artificially constructing artificial constructs.....whatever next?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Crikey you came in from out of the sun there....If I didn't know better I would have thought you were trying to deflect Outrider and Ippy from making an arse of themselves trying to argue that the self is an artificial construct.

Evasions noted, and that's not what Outy and Ippy are doing. All that's being said is that our brains makes sense of the world as best they can using the data and reasoning available. One of the models they produce is of a "self" somehow distinct and separate from our bodies, but the finding of neuroscience in particular tell us that while this model is fine the job is has to do, it's inaccurate nonetheless. 

[floo]

Giving the lie to the claim that it is "God-breathed". 

Well if it is god-breathed I bet the alcohol fumes would have been overwhelming!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Blimey......artificial constructs artificially constructing artificial constructs.....whatever next?

You're getting hung up on "artificial" here. ipods don't grown on trees, but the people who design and make the are themselves part of nature. The models our brains construct to explain the world are also part of nature, but they are just that - models, and often inaccurate ones too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Evasions noted, and that's not what Outy and Ippy are doing. All that's being said is that our brains makes sense of the world as best they can using the data and reasoning available. One of the models they produce is of a "self" somehow distinct and separate from our bodies, but the finding of neuroscience in particular tell us that while this model is fine the job is has to do, it's inaccurate nonetheless.

In due time Hillside in due time

While you have all your little wizards like outy and Ippy running around I'm afraid it is in my purview whose bonfire to piss on isn't it..................,,

So far Outy and Ippy ...and you....... are proposing artificial constructs artificially constructing an artificial construct. How does the term artificial square with naturalism.

What after all is doing the constructing? And why should we be calling it the illusion of self instead of the self just because of a few reductionists?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

You're getting hung up on "artificial" here.

No Outy and Ippy are because they are trying to use the term to hammer something home.

Honestly Hillside I admire a man prepared to get his intellectually youthful, callow and loutish and philosophically laddish mates out of the shit they have got themselves in but you end up looking like a polisher.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

In due time Hillside in due time

While you have all your little wizards like outy and Ippy running around I'm afraid it is in my purview whose bonfire to piss on isn't it..................,,

So far as I can recall you've never once managed successfully to "piss on" anything here, though you have ruined an awful lot of pairs of trousers. Lies, incomprehension and evasion do not constitute a fire extinguisher of any sort, so you'll have to up your game hugely if you really want to achieve that.

So far Outy and Ippy ...and you....... are proposing artificial constructs artificially constructing an artificial construct. How does the term artificial square with naturalism.

QED - no-one's suggesting any such thing, and it's all "natural" in any case. Birds' nests would not exist if there weren't birds to construct them - does that make them "artificial" or "natural" in your lexicon?

What after all is doing the constructing? And why should we be calling it the illusion of self instead of the self just because of a few reductionists?

We (and birds) are doing the constructing, no "self" independent of the "we" is necessary for that, and - as has been explained to you many, many times - you cannot be a "reductionist" unless you first establish that there's something to reduce from.

Apart from that though...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

No Outy and Ippy are because they are trying to use the term to hammer something home.

Honestly Hillside I admire a man prepared to get his intellectually youthful, callow and loutish and philosophically laddish mates out of the shit they have got themselves in but you end up looking like a polisher.

Your failure to comprehend that arguments they make does not imply that they are in the doo-doo. All it does imply is that you are unable to grasp the arguments they make. 

Sadly for you, just because it's your turn to work the Assertotron doesn't mean that the assertions it belches out are true.

[ippy]

So what you are saying is that I constructed God myself?

I thought what I wrote on that last post was pretty clear:

"Something like this god idea, an artificial construct, constructed by others and you've adopted it into your mind"?
 
What was it you wanted me to say?

ippy

[Outrider]

Artificial construct? How can you have an artificial construct in nature?

You don't, you get artificial constructs in the uninformed explanations for natural events. Of course, I say 'you'...

O.

[Outrider]

No Outy and Ippy are because they are trying to use the term to hammer something home.

Honestly Hillside I admire a man prepared to get his intellectually youthful, callow and loutish and philosophically laddish mates out of the shit they have got themselves in but you end up looking like a polisher.

But consider who it is that looks like the turd being polished, Vlad...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,



QED - no-one's suggesting any such thing, and it's all "natural" in any case. Birds' nests would not exist if there weren't birds to construct them - does that make them "artificial" or "natural" in your lexicon?

We (and birds) are doing the constructing, no "self" independent of the "we" is necessary for that, and - as has been explained to you many, many times - you cannot be a "reductionist" unless you first establish that there's something to reduce from.

Apart from that though...

What an excuse! But consistent with your Ilk

Dr Dawkins didn't really mean that the gene was selfish
Dr Dawkins didn't mean to say religion was the root of all evil
Ippy and Outrider didn't mean to use the word artificial etc,etc,etc.

Stop avoiding the issues.

First one: Why use the term artificial construct to describe the self from a point of view of reductionist naturalism?

Second one: If the self is an illusion?.....what is that is being ''illuded'' or doing the constructing. Or is this all just a ruse to make you guys look more sophisticated....like a beauty spot or powdered wig* ''Oh look at us we knoooooooow we are just a bunch of nerve tissue''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But consider who it is that looks like the turd being polished, Vlad...

O.

Yep. You and if you think Hillside is a class act that is just your internal victory of style over substance.....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't, you get artificial constructs in the uninformed explanations for natural events. Of course, I say 'you'...

Name such a natural event then and point out the ''artificial construct'' (this should be good)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought what I wrote on that last post was pretty clear:

"Something like this god idea, an artificial construct, constructed by others and you've adopted it into your mind"?
 
What was it you wanted me to say?

ippy

I'm afraid My experience of God was nothing like the God constructed by prevailing culture....I.e. Secular Humanism.

Whereas that is very much nearer to your construct of God.

Therefore it turns out that God as traded by the vastly numerically superior antitheists on this forum is actually Your artificial construction

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Yet more evasions and misunderstandings noted. As for your latest batch of stupidities...
 

What an excuse! But consistent with your Ilk

A cogent explanation is not an "excuse".

Dr Dawkins didn't really mean that the gene was selfish

Of course he meant it in the sense that genes function in the interests of the genome. It was never meant though in the sense that a gene wakes up one morning and thinks, "you know, I think I'll be a bit selfish today". Maybe if you tried actually reading some Richard Dawkins you'd finally see where you keep going wrong?
 

Dr Dawkins didn't mean to say religion was the root of all evil

I'm not aware that he did. No doubt you'll be along to provide a citation though?

Won't you?

Ippy and Outrider didn't mean to use the word artificial etc,etc,etc.

Of course they did, but it doesn't imply what you think it implies. Again, do you think a bird's nest is "artificial" or "natural" in your idiosyncratic lexicon? 

Stop avoiding the issues.

And another military grade, lead-lined, quake-proof irony meter lies in a pile of cogs and springs at my feet...

First one: Why use the term artificial construct to describe the self from a point of view of reductionist naturalism?

First one: there is no "reductionist" naturalism, and nor can there be unless you finally show there to be something to reduce from. As for naturalism, there are many layers of "artificiality" possible in the sense that agencies are needed for something to occur (birds building nests for example) but it's all part of nature.

Why is this difficult for you?

Second one: If the self is an illusion?.....what is that is being ''illuded'' or doing the constructing. Or is this all just a ruse to make you guys look more sophisticated....like a beauty spot or powdered wig* ''Oh look at us we knoooooooow we are just a bunch of nerve tissue''.

Second one: that's not even a coherent question. The sense of "self" is a model our brains construct, and it's commonly perceived as a separate "something" from the rest of the physical "us". The science tells us though that this sense of separateness is illusory.

Again, why is this so difficult for you? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The sense of "self" is a model our brains construct

A model .........................so it is greater? Or more to the point is the model wrong Hillside?.......is it an illusion?

Essentially a non sequiter reply. You are just shoring up reductionist materialism since you suggest that there is no self(artificial construct) and simultaneously believe there is because we have a scientific model of it according to you.

in naturalism there can be no artificial construct.

I think if you answered the question of the illusion of self. What is being illuded in the illusion of self............... that might help your case........or not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside wrote

Of course he meant it in the sense that genes function in the interests of the genome.

A bit unfortunate choice of word though particularly if you also argue that the self doesn't exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

A model .........................so it is greater? Or more to the point is the model wrong Hillside?.......is it an illusion?

Greater than what? Yes, it's "wrong" inasmuch as there's no evidence for a separate place for this "self" to be, and because the impression of it does not rely on the fact of separateness. 

Essentially a non sequiter reply.

1. It's non sequitur.

2. That's not what non sequitur means in any case.

3. No it isn't - it's a straightforward answer to your misconceived question.

You are just shoring up reductionist materialism...

You're as dumbass wrong about that as always because - yet again - there's no reason to think that materialism is "reductionist", and nor will there be until you finally establish that there's something for it to reduce from. 

Do you think that you'll always struggle with this, or is there any prospect at all that the lightbulb will finally switch on?

...since you suggest that there is no self(artificial construct) and simultaneously believe there is because we have a scientific model of it according to you.

Are you on bad medication or something?

First, ironically that actually is an example of a non sequitur. 

Second, science explains that the impression we have of a separate "self" is misleading because there's no reason to think that it is actually is separate at all.

If a ten-year-old can understand this, why can't you? 

...in naturalism there can be no artificial construct.

Depends which meaning of "artificial" you're attempting. If you mean, "not natural" then that's right insamuch as there's no evidence for the non-natural; if though you mean, "caused by sentient beings - for example birds building nests" then of course there's "artificiality". 

I think if you answered the question of the illusion of cells

No I didn't.

What is being illuded in the illusion of self that might help your case........or not.

Wouldn't be easier to eat alphabet soup and crap a more meaningful sentence than that?

I notice by the way that you've refused to tell us whether birds' nests are "artificial" in your lexicon, and for that matter to provide a citation for Richard Dawkins saying the religion is the root of all evil. Should we take it therefore that you're just running way from the former and lying about the latter? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

A bit unfortunate choice of word though particularly if you also argue that the self doesn't exist.

1. Evasions of the rebuttals I posted noted.

2. It's not "unfortunate" at all because not all readers are literalists like you.   

3. I don't argue that "the self" doesn't exist, just that there's no reason to think that it's separate from the rest of our material selves. 

Why is this simple point so difficult for you that you have to keep lying about it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Greater than what? Yes, it's "wrong" inasmuch as there's no evidence for a separate place for this "self" to be, and because the impression of it does not rely on the fact of separateness. 

1. It's non sequitur.

2. That's not what non sequitur means in any case.

3. No it isn't - it's a straightforward answer to your misconceived question.

You're as dumbass wrong about that as always because - yet again - there's no reason to think that materialism is "reductionist", and nor will there be until you finally establish that there's something for it to reduce from. 

Do you think that you'll always struggle with this, or is there any prospect at all that the lightbulb will finally switch on?

Are you on bad medication or something?

First, ironically that actually is an example of a non sequitur. 

Second, science explains that the impression we have of a separate "self" is misleading because there's no reason to think that it is actually is separate at all.

If a ten-year-old can understand this, why can't you? 

Depends which meaning of "artificial" you're attempting. If you mean, "not natural" then that's right insamuch as there's no evidence for the non-natural; if though you mean, "caused by sentient beings - for example birds building nests" then of course there's "artificiality". 

No I didn't.

Wouldn't be easier to eat alphabet soup and crap a more meaningful sentence than that?

I notice by the way that you've refused to tell us whether birds' nests are "artificial" in your lexicon, and for that matter to provide a citation for Richard Dawkins saying the religion is the root of all evil. Should we take it therefore that you're just running way from the former and lying about the latter?

OK then since you side stepped the question of illusion for the word impression? What is it that gets the impression?

Nothing in nature is artificial.
Re reductionist....You are being reductionist since you are suggesting that the self can be reduced.

Dennett is being reductionist because he sidesteps the problem of consciousness and the P Zombie by suggesting we are the P Zombie.....

That is what is meant by being caught being reductionist Hillside.

In other words you are building the bastion against emergence and have got your self in the position that all phenomena must be explicable by the previous level of matter otherwise it is an illusion but then the question remains what is being illuded? and artificialconstructs artificially constructing artificial constructs.