Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

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

You of all people are accusing someone else of "sidestepping"?

Really?

Really really?

Oh, and I sidestepped nothing. If you're going to make up personal usages of works like "illuded" you can't seriously expect a response to them though.

What "gets the impression" is the non-dualist self of course. 

Nothing in nature is artificial.

Stop weaselling. Is a bird's nest "in nature"? What about a mud hut? How about an ipod?

Where arbitrarily do you want to draw the line between "artificial" and "natural" in the lexicon in your head?

Re reductionist....You are being reductionist since you are suggesting that the self can be reduced.

Actually the opposite of that - increased rather than reduced. The evidence suggest that there's no special place for a "self" somehow separate from the material "us" to be, so why just make it up in any case?

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

Wrong again. He doesn't sidestep it at all, but he does argue (persuasively in my view) that consciousness is an emergent property of our brains rather than the "little man at the controls" that dualism requires. 

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

No it isn't. You have first to establish this little man at the controls if you want to argue that someone is a reductionist for ignoring the conjecture.

Is your world view "reductionist" from leprechaunism?

Why not?

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.

Posting gibberish is not an "in other words" if you want it to be a summary of your position.

Take a deep breath:

1. I'm arguing for consciousness as an emergent property of our brains, pretty much the opposite of building a "bastion" against it. 

2. Yes, it seems likely that the universe we observe is a deterministic, cause and effect paradigm. If you want to break the chain of cause and effect though, then you have all your work ahead of you finally to establish a method for it rather than just run away whenever you're asked to do so.

3. The impression of a "self" separate from the material "us" is conceptually no different from the impression of the sun "rising" in the morning - they're just both the way things seem to be. Neither impression though has anything much to say to how things actually are.

Is it sinking in yet?

Anything?

Oh, and how's that citation for Richard Dawkins claiming the religion is the root of al evil coming, or is your continued silence an admission that you were just lying again? 
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

You of all people are accusing someone else of "sidestepping"?

Really?

Really really?

Oh, and I sidestepped nothing. If you're going to make up personal usages of works like "illuded" you can't seriously expect a response to them though.

What "gets the impression" is the non-dualist self of course. 

Stop weaselling. Is a bird's nest "in nature"? What about a mud hut? How about an ipod?

Where arbitrarily do you want to draw the line between "artificial" and "natural" in the lexicon in your head?

Actually the opposite of that - increased rather than reduced. The evidence suggest that there's no special place for a "self" somehow separate from the material "us" to be, so why just make it up in any case?

Wrong again. He doesn't sidestep it at all, but he does argue (persuasively in my view) that consciousness is an emergent property of our brains rather than the "little man at the controls" that dualism requires. 

No it isn't. You have first to establish this little man at the controls if you want to argue that someone is a reductionist for ignoring the conjecture.

Is your world view "reductionist" from leprechaunism?

Why not?

Posting gibberish is not an "in other words" if you want it to be a summary of your position.

Take a deep breath:

1. I'm arguing for consciousness as an emergent property of our brains, pretty much the opposite of building a "bastion" against it. 

2. Yes, it seems likely that the universe we observe is a deterministic, cause and effect paradigm. If you want to break the chain of cause and effect though, then you have all your work ahead of you finally to establish a method for it rather than just run away whenever you're asked to do so.

3. The impression of a "self" separate from the material "us" is conceptually no different from the impression of the sun "rising" in the morning - they're just both the way things seem to be. Neither impression though has anything much to say to how things actually are.

Is it sinking in yet?

Anything?

Oh, and how's that citation for Richard Dawkins claiming the religion is the root of al evil coming, or is your continued silence an admission that you were just lying again?

Well I've nothing to add to this litany of bollocks.........anyone else?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Well I've nothing to add to this litany of bollocks.........anyone else?

Well, it would have been more gracious to phrase that as, "yeah, fair enough - I cannot mount counter-arguments so I'll just throw in the towel instead" but as we know you and graciousness to be total strangers that'll have to do I guess.

You're welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

3. The impression of a "self" separate from the material "us" is conceptually no different from the impression of the sun "rising" in the morning - they're just both the way things seem to be.

So you do think that the artificial construction of self is wrong.
What then is the truth?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Back already? Maybe with that citation for Richard Dawkins so we know you didn't just make it up?

So you do think that the artificial construction of self is wrong.

And that'll be a "no" then. Funny that.

And again - what I think (because that's what the reasoning and evidence suggests) is that the impression of the self being in some way a non-material "something" separate from the material brain but also in some unexplained way able to interact with it wrong, yes. 

What then is the truth?

"The" truth, or "truth"?

Claims of "the" truth I leave to absolutists like you. "Truth" on the other hand is the label we give to the probabilistic assessment of the data available to us using reason so as to sift more accurate potential explanations from less accurate ones.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Well, it would have been more gracious to phrase that as, "yeah, fair enough - I cannot mount counter-arguments so I'll just throw in the towel instead" but as we know you and graciousness to be total strangers that'll have to do I guess.

You're welcome.

I am still trying to get to what your argument is Hillside

For instance you are saying that the natural process of bird nest building is in fact artificial. That artificial constructs construct themselves (cause and effect issues?) and then go onto to artificially construct artificial constructs?

I can't have thrown in the towel because I haven't passed the justifiably confused state yet?

Who ever said that we are not natural not I.

I don't think Dennett is big on emergence since that isn't exactly his brand of materialism or yours.......and thus we get to the denouement Hillside,............. the reason you can't call a spade a spade.....or in this case a Self a Self............You can't measure a self .....and that goes against your reductionist materialist dogma.

Sorry to comprehensively Piss on your Bonfire and your nonsense of the ''Illusion of self''

[wigginhall]

It's interesting also that some Eastern religions have criticized the idea of a separate self, not because of scientific evidence (or lack of), but because their guys who meditate intensively, come back and say, hey, we can't find this self.   

It's the Cartesian fallacy, isn't it?  There is thinking, therefore a thinker.  Well, OK, present this thinker.   

[jeremyp]

Sorry to comprehensively Piss on your Bonfire and your nonsense of the ''Illusion of self''

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's interesting also that some Eastern religions have criticized the idea of a separate self, not because of scientific evidence (or lack of), but because their guys who meditate intensively, come back and say, hey, we can't find this self.   

I'm not denying ecstasy by which I mean stepping out of or losing one's self.

Indeed this is found not only in religion, hobbies and interests, an absorbing job and yes, doing Science as well.

[wigginhall]

I'm not denying ecstasy by which I mean stepping out of or losing one's self.

Indeed this is found not only in religion, hobbies and interests, an absorbing job and yes, doing Science as well.

Well, no, many Buddhists argue that there is no separate self to lose.  If there is, produce it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

   

It's the Cartesian fallacy, isn't it?  There is thinking, therefore a thinker.  Well, OK, present this thinker.

Is that a proper fallacy Wigginhall or are you just adding the word fallacy to others?

Something must be doing the thinking otherwise there is no thought.

The best renditions of a thinker was not done or refuted by some message board twat but by Rodin and the bloke that did the statue of Alison Lepper.....That's right the thinker is a person.
Not a neural network which is immediately lost on it's own but a body, mind and spirit human being............... and with that bit of sentimental woo, i'll bid you good evening.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, no, many Buddhists argue that there is no separate self to lose.

How can they?.........They don't exist.

[wigginhall]

Is that a proper fallacy Wigginhall or are you just adding the word fallacy to others?

Something must be doing the thinking otherwise there is no thought.

The best renditions of a thinker was not done or refuted by some message board twat but by Rodin and the bloke that did the statue of Alison Lepper.....That's right the thinker is a person.
Not a neural network which is immediately lost on it's own but a body, mind and spirit human being............... and with that bit of sentimental woo, i'll bid you good evening.

Certainly, one could argue that something is doing the thinking, but it need not be a thinker.   Thus, something is doing my breathing, but is there therefore a breather?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Certainly, one could argue that something is doing the thinking, but it need not be a thinker.   Thus, something is doing my breathing, but is there therefore a breather?

we can deduce that from the fact that breathing is taking place.......are you sure you wish to proceed with this?

[wigginhall]

we can deduce that from the fact that breathing is taking place.......are you sure you wish to proceed with this?

Fuck off with your stupid insults.  You are a fucking disgrace.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fuck off with your stupid insults.  You are a fucking disgrace.

It's the Wigginhall fallacy.....If there are insults then there has to be an insulter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

I am still trying to get to what your argument is Hillside

Why? It’s simple enough I’d have thought.

For instance you are saying that the natural process of bird nest building is in fact artificial. That artificial constructs construct themselves (cause and effect issues?) and then go onto to artificially construct artificial constructs?

Step back a moment. The problem here – your problem in fact – is that you lack a sense of nuance, of the ambiguous. If you want to use words like “artificial” to contrast with “natural” then you need to explain what you mean by it. Birds for example assemble materials to build nests. Are those nests “artificial” therefore because they wouldn’t have occurred without the birds, or are they “natural” because it’s all part of nature in any case?

And if you can answer that, do you see a definitional difference between that and, say, humans  assembling different materials to make ipods?

Is one “natural” and the other not in your head?

I can't have thrown in the towel because I haven't passed the justifiably confused state yet?

You threw in the towel because you used your standard escape route when it all gets too confusing for you – insult.

Who ever said that we are not natural not I.

And nor did I say you did.

I don't think Dennett is big on emergence since that isn't exactly his brand of materialism or yours.......and thus we get to the denouement Hillside,............. the reason you can't call a spade a spade.....or in this case a Self a Self............You can't measure a self .....and that goes against your reductionist materialist dogma.

And again you fall of the cliff of your own dull incomprehension. I can only explain these things so many times – if you can only respond with slack-jawed misrepresentations, there’s not much more I can do for you.   

Sorry to comprehensively Piss on your Bonfire and your nonsense of the ''Illusion of self''

And again all you’ve actually done is to ruin another pair of trousers.

Must be costing you a fortune.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Fuck off with your stupid insults.  You are a fucking disgrace.

Seconded.

Coda: I do like "Fucking Disgrace" as a fitting moniker for Vlad though - do you mind if I use it (or maybe "FD" for speed)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Why? It’s simple enough I’d have thought.

Step back a moment. The problem here – your problem in fact – is that you lack a sense of nuance, of the ambiguous. If you want to use words like “artificial” to contrast with “natural” then you need to explain what you mean by it. Birds for example assemble materials to build nests. Are those nests “artificial” therefore because they wouldn’t have occurred without the birds, or are they “natural” because it’s all part of nature in any case?

And if you can answer that, do you see a definitional difference between that and, say, humans  assembling different materials to make ipods?

Is one “natural” and the other not in your head?

You threw in the towel because you used your standard escape route when it all gets too confusing for you – insult.

And nor did I say you did.

And again you fall of the cliff of your own dull incomprehension. I can only explain these things so many times – if you can only respond with slack-jawed misrepresentations, there’s not much more I can do for you.   

And again all you’ve actually done is to ruin another pair of trousers.

Must be costing you a fortune.

[Alan Burns]

Why search for God?

I certainly would not want to search for the Christian God depicted by Dawkins or Hitchens or several prominent members of this forum.  And I would run a mile from the God described by Floo!

Christians are often accused of inventing the God they need to find, but in my experience, when you find God He is not the God you expected.  It is hard to imagine how one God, the creator of the universe, can have a personal relationship with every human being.  But when you find God and He makes Himself known, you will be truly overwhelmed by this personal love.  It brought me to tears when I first encountered it in my mid twenties.  God does not look upon us as a tiny cog in the vast machine of humanity.  Christ's love fills, transforms and glorifies individual human beings.

The words of this hymn come to mind (based on Hosea 14:1)

Come back to me with all your heart
Don’t let fear keep us apart
Trees do bend though straight and tall
So must we to others call

Long have I waited for
Your coming home to me
And living deeply our new life

My hope and prayer is that every member of this forum will come to discover the reality of Christ's love.

[Leonard James]

Why search for God?

I certainly would not want to search for the Christian God depicted by Dawkins or Hitchens or several prominent members of this forum.  And I would run a mile from the God described by Floo!

Christians are often accused of inventing the God they need to find, but in my experience, when you find God He is not the God you expected.  It is hard to imagine how one God, the creator of the universe, can have a personal relationship with every human being.  But when you find God and He makes Himself known, you will be truly overwhelmed by this personal love.  It brought me to tears when I first encountered it in my mid twenties.  God does not look upon us as a tiny cog in the vast machine of humanity.  Christ's love fills, transforms and glorifies individual human beings.

The words of this hymn come to mind (based on Hosea 14:1)

Come back to me with all your heart
Don’t let fear keep us apart
Trees do bend though straight and tall
So must we to others call

Long have I waited for
Your coming home to me
And living deeply our new life

My hope and prayer is that every member of this forum will come to discover the reality of Christ's love.

That's nice for you, Alan ... but you just have to accept that it is only your experience. You are assuming that everybody is going to react in the same way as you ... and it just ain't so! 

[Leonard James]

What is the reality of the 'love' of Jesus? He couldn't be bothered coming through for me when I was a kid and I desperately him, very loving, NOT!

Similar to my own experience. When I started to have doubts as a teenager, I prayed for help, too ... but answer came there none.

[Alan Burns]

That's nice for you, Alan ... but you just have to accept that it is only your experience. You are assuming that everybody is going to react in the same way as you ... and it just ain't so! 

I have witnessed the amazing transformation of several hardened atheists.
It can happen to anyone, Len, including you. 

[Leonard James]

I have witnessed the amazing transformation of several hardened atheists.
It can happen to anyone, Len, including you. 

I can only repeat to you, Alan, that it will work on people who need to believe. I, and many others don't have that need. In a way, it's very like a drug ... some get hooked but others don't.