Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

NS,

I have. Ironically, his pointing to his PhD is as you say itself (yet another) piece of fallacious reasoning (the red herring fallacy or the appeal to irrelevance). Be nice if he would finally give us an, "ah, I see what you mean now" but so far at least he's shown no sign of being able to process the issue at all.

I live in hope though...

I quoted my qualifications in response to the implication in one of your posts that I was not capable of writing computer software!

I admit that I do not have the time or space to fully develop my arguments in the posts I make on this forum.  I am sure I could do a better job if I was writing another thesis.  So you rightly point out the gaps and inconsistencies which are apparent in my posts.

There is a wealth of literature available on the subjects of human perception and the conflicts between free will and determinism.  These subjects are very deep.  So what I have done give an overview of my own thoughts, which go much deeper than the content of my posts.  What I am trying to do is encourage people to think about the reality of our existence and what it is comprised of. (sorry for the tautology again, but you know my meaning).  I would hope that people will come to realise that there is much more to reality that what can be defined in material science.

[Nearly Sane]

4. Neuroscience is telling us more and more about the nature of consciousness. The picture is far from complete, but all the evidence points to a material explanation for it. What argument would you propose to make and what evidence would you bring forward to invalidate that?
         

Given that it is a material and naturalist method, what is defined as evidence must point to that type of explanation. Without a non material method, stating that it points that way is tautologous.

[SusanDoris]

bluehilside #9713

I just don't understand how AB can be so apparently totally unable to see the sense and science in all the rational posters' posts!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Given that it is a material and naturalist method, what is defined as evidence must point to that type of explanation. Without a non material method, stating that it points that way is tautologous.

Fine with that in principle (provided to you accept that the same is true for, say, medicine pointing to material causes for diseases), but it still leaves the problem for the proponent of the non-material explanation that he has to find a method of some kind to distinguish his claims from just guessing. 

[SusanDoris]

These subjects are very deep  So what I have done give an overview of my own thoughts, which go much deeper than the content of my posts.

The implication here is that you are capable of much 'deeper' - whatever that means here - thought than others.

What I am trying to do is encourage people to think about the reality of our existence and what it is comprised of. (sorry for the tautology again, but you know my meaning).  I would hope that people will come to realise that there is much more to reality that what can be defined in material science.

As always, this is an assertion based on your own beliefs, not on objective evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Fine with that in principle (provided to you accept that the same is true for, say, medicine pointing to material causes for diseases), but it still leaves the problem for the proponent of the non-material explanation that he has to find a method of some kind to distinguish his claims from just guessing.

Why wouldn't I accept that? The point is that it is not an additional point. The method defines what evidence is, therefore it cannot point to something outside the method. The problem of another method was already made.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I quoted my qualifications in response to the implication in one of your posts that I was not capable of writing computer software!

I implied no such thing. When you said "I am a Doctor of Philosophy" rather than the usual "I have a PhD" I took you to imply that you had some grounding in philosophy. Whether or not you can write computer software is a different matter.

I admit that I do not have the time or space to fully develop my arguments in the posts I make on this forum.  I am sure I could do a better job if I was writing another thesis.  So you rightly point out the gaps and inconsistencies which are apparent in my posts.

Not having the time or space fully to develop your arguments isn't your problem. If your argument is a bad one to start with (ie, it's logically fallacious) then no amount of further development will fix that. And that's the issue - you continually essay bad arguments with apparently no regard for how bad they are. If you're serious about "saving souls" or some such, then your first step should be to identify the broken arguments you make and to try a different tack instead.   

There is a wealth of literature available on the subjects of human perception and the conflicts between free will and determinism.  These subjects are very deep.  So what I have done give an overview of my own thoughts, which go much deeper than the content of my posts.  What I am trying to do is encourage people to think about the reality of our existence and what it is comprised of. (sorry for the tautology again, but you know my meaning).  I would hope that people will come to realise that there is much more to reality that what can be defined in material science.

Well, "can" vs "could" is important here. Of course people realise that science can't explain everything - that's why, absent any other method, people do more science to try to find the answers.

If though you're actually leaning toward a "could" then you've given yourself a huge task both to establish the principle that science could never explain it, and to suggest a different method that could explain it if the best we could get to isn't to be just a "don't know". 

[Shaker]

I quoted my qualifications in response to the implication in one of your posts that I was not capable of writing computer software!

Actually, no - it was nothing to do with the capability of writing computer software or the lack thereof but a manifest failure to construct or to follow a logical argument, the deployment of one fallacy after another after another, and bald assertion laid down in place of a reasoned case. These are not the sorts of traits associated with someone with the claimed IQ and claimed qualifications that you've presented.

What I am trying to do is encourage people to think about the reality of our existence and what it is comprised of.

I already do that quite a bit. I see no reason whatsoever why gods, devils or any other form of the supernatural are supposed to be included in this.

I would hope that people will come to realise that there is much more to reality that what can be defined in material science.

If you can't provide any method of being able to determine this (and you can't), why on earth should people believe your assertions?

Moreover, why is it so important to you that people come to realise this - in other words, to believe as you do?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Why wouldn't I accept that? The point is that it is not an additional point. The method defines what evidence is, therefore it cannot point to something outside the method. The problem of another method was already made.

I know, but AB's position is that because science can't explain consciousness then we must look "elsewhere" for the real explanation. I was merely pointing out that, to a significant extent, science already can explain consciousness (albeit that the picture is far from complete) so his premise is at least partially false, as indeed would be his conclusion even if neuroscience didn't have the first thing to say about consciousness.     

[Gonnagle]

Dear Alan,

There is a wealth of literature available on the subjects of human perception and the conflicts between free will and determinism.  These subjects are very deep.  So what I have done give an overview of my own thoughts, which go much deeper than the content of my posts.  What I am trying to do is encourage people to think about the reality of our existence and what it is comprised of. (sorry for the tautology again, but you know my meaning).  I would hope that people will come to realise that there is much more to reality that what can be defined in material science.

Go on mate, encourage me, go deeper, tell me about the reality of our existence, this thread is littered with one liners, take your time, send me on a journey of understanding, tell me about the conflicts between freewill and determinism.

Her's a nice wee article on the subject,

http://www.simplypsychology.org/freewill-determinism.html

What's your take ( or anyone else for that matter ) on soft determinism, which to me is saying, yes we do have freewill but we also have to consider what makes us us ( us us )

Gonnagle.

PS: Your qualifications, mensa, PHD, they are a irrelevancy to me, and as old Sane has mentioned, I would be more impressed if you did have a Gold Blue Peter Badge

[Outrider]

There is a wealth of literature available on the subjects of human perception and the conflicts between free will and determinism.

Yes, there is. None of it that I've come across gives any explanation of how you can have 'Free Will' at all, it's either presumed to be a valid concept without explanation or it's investigated and shown to be an oxymoron.

Similarly, works either try to justify a 'source' for free will or they examine the available evidence which suggests that every component of the mechanisms that are part of our thinking processes are deterministic.

These subjects are very deep.  So what I have done give an overview of my own thoughts, which go much deeper than the content of my posts.

You don't need those sorts of depths of explanation for free will until you've justified the concept in the first place. In order to do that you have to show the following:

 - how something can be 'will' (i.e. the product of a review of the available information) and 'free' (i.e. not dependent upon the available information)

 - some sort of evidence for a part of human thought or consciousness that is not material (and, please note, the argument from personal incredulity is not evidence for anything).

Until that's done, your musings on the potential nature of free will are as worthwhile as your musings on the gases that fill the hollow in the centre of the Earth.

What I am trying to do is encourage people to think about the reality of our existence and what it is comprised of.

Ironic, then, that you ignore all the evidence of our reality in favour of conjectural hypotheticals to justify your preconceptions. There is no evidence of souls or spirits.

I would hope that people will come to realise that there is much more to reality that what can be defined in material science.

So you keep saying, but you've yet to actually offer any reason to accept that claim. You believe it, I appreciate that, but I fail to see why.

O.

[savillerow]

Msg 9725 Outrider  You see this a lot where people are living in the modern world, in touch with all that is on offer to make life supposedly better. Then when you have a "faith" its ring fenced certain bits and you to do the old mental gymnastics to make your beliefs jump through all those imaginary hoops to keep the dream alive. I really do wonder that if some people have to confront for real what they think they believe it will show up that their whole lives have been baseless and they could not handle it. So carrying on with the pretence is essential!!!

[wigginhall]

This 'there is more to reality than you think, or than science can describe' line is pretty manky.  Oooh, spooky, maybe we are in the Matrix, maybe there are fragrant Venusian jellyfish which sing 'Life on Mars' and drink Guinness, maybe there are gravity fairies, which make things fall.   

I have a lot of friends who are into New Age stuff, and they love to think that there are strange worlds or strange states, blah blah blah, but basically, most of them are trying to escape this reality.   Maybe that is a bit harsh.  But what have they ever discovered?  Dogs shit along ley lines, I suppose. 

Personally, I think the sun is driven across the sky by a chariot, and the chariot has seven horses, and it is driven by a naked woman, who is advertising Sky TV.   So, come on, prove that this isn't true!  Her name is Deirdre, actually.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

This 'there is more to reality than you think, or than science can describe' line is pretty manky.  Oooh, spooky, maybe we are in the Matrix, maybe there are fragrant Venusian jellyfish which sing 'Life on Mars' and drink Guinness, maybe there are gravity fairies, which make things fall.   

I have a lot of friends who are into New Age stuff, and they love to think that there are strange worlds or strange states, blah blah blah, but basically, most of them are trying to escape this reality.   Maybe that is a bit harsh.  But what have they ever discovered?  Dogs shit along ley lines, I suppose. 

Personally, I think the sun is driven across the sky by a chariot, and the chariot has seven horses, and it is driven by a naked woman, who is advertising Sky TV.   So, come on, prove that this isn't true!  Her name is Deirdre, actually.

My seventeen-year-old daughter was telling me that a boy tried chatting her up recently with the "everything happens for a reason" line, to which she added that she thought in response, "So basically you're telling me that you're a bit thick then".

I've never been more proud of her!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

So, come on, prove that this isn't true!

PS - I think maybe you've been hanging around with Hope a bit too long...

[Alan Burns]

My seventeen-year-old daughter was telling me that a boy tried chatting her up recently with the "everything happens for a reason" line, to which she added that she thought in response, "So basically you're telling me that you're a bit thick then".

I've never been more proud of her!

Surely the phrase: "everything happens for a reason" is at the heart of determinism?

[Outrider]

Surely the phrase: "everything happens for a reason" is at the heart of determinism?

Not really. Everything is the result of earlier activity is not the same as everything happening for a reason - reason implies something capable of reasoning, and the selection of a particular outcome by a capable agency.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

This 'there is more to reality than you think, or than science can describe' line is pretty manky.

Good heavens, do you really mean to say you weren't impressed by a certain poster reiterating for the Nth freakin' time the one Shakespearean quote he managed to remember?

[Alan Burns]

Not really. Everything is the result of earlier activity is not the same as everything happening for a reason - reason implies something capable of reasoning, and the selection of a particular outcome by a capable agency.

O.

So you are implying that the selection of a particular outcome by a capable agency is something over and above normal deterministic behaviour. 

[wigginhall]

Surely the phrase: "everything happens for a reason" is at the heart of determinism?

The usage that blue cited is more New Ageish, and means something like, 'it's destiny that we've met like this', or really, it's part of a plan.    As blue said, a reasonable reply is to blow a raspberry.   

It's not a bad chat-up line, I suppose, better than 'what cup size are you?'.

[wigginhall]

Good heavens, do you really mean to say you weren't impressed by a certain poster reiterating for the Nth freakin' time the one Shakespearean quote he managed to remember?

Is that 'there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio ...' ?  A very nice line, but I'm not sure that I'd build an argument on it.   Hamlet also says, of the world, ''tis an unweeded garden, that grows to seed, things rank and gross possess it merely', but then his mum has just jumped in the sack with his father's assassin, bit of a downer. 

[Dicky Underpants]

Is that 'there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio ...' ?  A very nice line, but I'm not sure that I'd build an argument on it.   Hamlet also says, of the world, ''tis an unweeded garden, that grows to seed, things rank and gross possess it merely', but then his mum has just jumped in the sack with his father's assassin, bit of a downer.

Friend of mine not long ago wrote and performed in his own version of said assassin's memories and motivations - in Barnstaple, forsooth. Somewhat esoteric.

[Nearly Sane]

Is that 'there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio ...' ?  A very nice line, but I'm not sure that I'd build an argument on it.   Hamlet also says, of the world, ''tis an unweeded garden, that grows to seed, things rank and gross possess it merely', but then his mum has just jumped in the sack with his father's assassin, bit of a downer.

I seem to remember reading discussion of the line ' than in your philosophy' relating to conflict between Catholic Elsinore and Protestant Wittenberg, where Hamlet and Horatio were studying. I don't think it was ever easy to work out which of the H's represented which philosophy, though given Horatio is the only 'main' character to survive, I would guess the easiest argument is that he is the new pragmatic Protestantism.

[ippy]

I leave the VENOM to you to spatter... Satan, very good at accusing others falsely.
Which if you look at the posts you are the one really insulting and attacking myself. The difference between you and I is I tell the truth and that can offend. Whilst you hate the truth and so become offended.

As I said... leave the venom for you to spatter. The truth may offend you and you get annoyed but that is for you to deal with.
Personally, I have a clear conscience. You attack but nothing really to offer up other than words which really show you alone have the problem. A problem with truth.
Casting dispersions on others...what did Alan do to deserve your insinuation he was a liar?...

Nice dig at all the members of the forum subtle nonetheless still an insult.

Dig at Vlad...

Ever heard the expression?  "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." Most of us reply to content of post.
But you make personal digs and insult others. Even make people doubt the honesty and integrity of others. Satan a good teacher and as you can see... I have just been telling the truth...

I am not the only one you do it to... Even the forum as whole can be insulted as your posts quoted show.

There has been no personal axe grind. I have just told the truth as it has been made to appear.
Do you deny what has been shown in your quotes? Why else would you write it?
It looks like you feel the need to find fault and insult the members of the forum.

4

ippy

[wigginhall]

I seem to remember reading discussion of the line ' than in your philosophy' relating to conflict between Catholic Elsinore and Protestant Wittenberg, where Hamlet and Horatio were studying. I don't think it was ever easy to work out which of the H's represented which philosophy, though given Horatio is the only 'main' character to survive, I would guess the easiest argument is that he is the new pragmatic Protestantism.

Fascinating stuff.  My memory is that Shakespeare's religious ideas were ignored for a long time, but then in the 20th century, critics began to look more closely, and claimed to find a ton of such stuff.   Also the idea that Shakespeare covertly referred to Catholic ideas, which could not be done openly. 

Hamlet certainly refers to the religious prohibition of suicide, but I don't think that was specifically Catholic.

But very interesting point about Wittenberg, which would be seen immediately by the audience as Proddy.