Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe they are one and the same.

If you are not clear should you be offering moral advice?

[floo]

If you are not clear should you be offering moral advice?

Satan is maligned, but god is the one who according to the Bible who has committed some dreadful crimes, like flooding the whole planet, if that story had any truth to it.

[Alan Burns]

Who is talking about proof ?  We talk rather of evidence and the evidence suggests that all animals that have eyes can actually see, and all animals that have ears can actually hear.  Unless you have some strong evidence to suggest otherwise, why would we not consider that creatures that have the apparatus to gather awareness of their surroundings are somehow nonetheless unaware ?

Does it not seem ironic that you can dismiss our apparent human free will as an illusion, but you can assume an animal's conscious awareness is the same as human's because we can observe reactions to various stimuli?

[floo]

Some animals come over as intelligent and appear to be thinking for themselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Satan is maligned, but god is the one who according to the Bible who has committed some dreadful crimes, like flooding the whole planet, if that story had any truth to it.

They would be crimes....... for a human. Since you have no problem using that biblical account for your argument why exclude the phrases that all will be resurrected...or that the sea will give up it's dead?

Which morality or court of justice are you appealing to anyway?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some animals come over as intelligent and appear to be thinking for themselves.

But I think the thread is about consciousness and ''soul''.

[floo]

They would be crimes....... for a human. Since you have no problem using that biblical account for your argument why exclude the phrases that all will be resurrected...or that the sea will give up it's dead?

Which morality or court of justice are you appealing to anyway?

And is that supposed to be a good thing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And is that supposed to be a good thing?

Eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And is that supposed to be a good thing?

I'm not quite sure what you are asking for here?

[floo]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking for here?

You appear to think resurrection is a good thing. I was questioning the concept, which of course I don't believe in, once you die you stay dead, imo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You appear to think resurrection is a good thing. I was questioning the concept, which of course I don't believe in, once you die you stay dead, imo.

I'm sorry but you seem to want the luxury of a point of view which states that God can be capable of crimes such as flooding the world but incapable of resurrecting people.

This is a bit of bigoted antitheist spin whereby you bowdlerise scripture to get left with the bad bits and ignore the good bits.
Against the usual trumped up charge of only wanting the good bits, I will acknowledge the bad news and the good news and take a reasonable overview. Bull atheists somehow find that impossible to do.

[Gordon]

I'm sorry but you seem to want the luxury of a point of view which states that God can be capable of crimes such as flooding the world but incapable of resurrecting people.

Unless, of course, one adopts the position that there are no good reasons to think that either claim (resurrection of Jesus or global flood) is factually correct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unless, of course, one adopts the position that there are no good reasons to think that either claim (resurrection of Jesus or global flood) is factually correct.

One is free to do that of course but to simultaneously as a body of antitheists argue that and to argue that God might be the devil or is the most evil because he flooded the world? I don't know whether that is the right way to go...

Or as Floo seems to be doing, Arguing that God must be more evil than the devil because he flooded the world while ignoring that the God she is talking about will also resurrect everyone.

That is cherrypicking and reverting to ''well I don't believe it anyway'' when your knowledge on the subject has been successfully challenged.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes and you start with ''no reason to take any line but that of philosophical physicalism''.

Why are you lying again? I do no such thing – as I’ve explained to you countless times. The models predicated on the material provide feedback that allows us to navigate the world we appear to experience. We call these things probabilistically “true”. Claims of the non-material do not – there’s no means of testing them, so epistemically they’re indistinguishable from just guessing. If ever though you can find someone who is an extreme physicalist of the type you’re so desperate to mislabel others as being, by all means take it up with him.

Alan then does a bottom up that's why he is talking the language of science.

No, he starts top down with the “the Bible says, therefore…”, “soul” etc and tries to fit them into the gaps as if they have some kind of explanatory force.

He’s also doing the opposite of “talking the language of science”: he either ignores or denies the science without bothering with the falsification bit.

I am not talking ''soul'' and yet you are straight into ''No reason to believe in anything other than a physicalist view''. It's all there Hillside.

Why even bother lying about something so easily checked?

You are struggling over ''consciousness'' and ''emergence'' Hillside...(You don't seem to get it.).... Not soul.

No, you are. The prevailing model is that consciousness is an emergent property of brains. “Soul” is just a top down conjecture used to deny that model because it contradicts religious dogma.

And if i'm honest ''overt communication'' as well.

You’re rarely honest.

This is not about me and Pixies and strings. That is just mug caricature on your part which just titillates the knuckledraggers.

Then it’s been lost on you again. Logically and epistemically “soul” and “pixies with strings” are equivalent conjectures – they rely on identical false reasoning for their force: “You have gaps in your explanation, therefore (insert favourite supernatural something here) must be the answer, even though I have no evidence whatever for it".

This is about you shoehorning consciousness into your view of universal unconsciousness. You want the word consciousness but it is an embarrassment which your views don't actually allow.

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

So what to do eh?

I suggest a two-step plan for you:

1. Be honest.

2. Try thinking.

Let me know how you get on.

Make consciousness equal to intelligence. Make emergence equal to just being a sophisticated version of the previous level of organisation (substratism?) rather than a novel property not found at the previous level(vis your guff about insect communities being ''proto conscious '' and the emergent property predicted by the previous level (Bollocks).

Possibly you missed Step 1 above?

Your seeming suggestion that the possibility of an insect colony becoming conscious was dependent on the number of synapses really shows up your confusion over both intelligence and emergence.

Er, no – what it shows is the prevailing model of consciousness if you treat insects as analogous with neurons and the scent paths between them as analogous with synapses.

Now please own up.... to you, Dennett, Torrid Don and the gang having to go a lot further with consciousness than the patch up job you are offering at the moment.

Folks working in the area have a long way to go to fill in the gaps, yes. As all that’s being said here though is there is only one investigable model that fits all the data – ie, emergence – then you appear to have ruined yet another pair of trousers with your latest error-strewn rant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why are you lying again? I do no such thing – as I’ve explained to you countless times. The models predicated on the material provide feedback that allows us to navigate the world we appear to experience. We call these things probabilistically “true”. Claims of the non-material do not – there’s no means of testing them, so epistemically they’re indistinguishable from just guessing. If ever though you can find someone who is an extreme physicalist of the type you’re so desperate to mislabel others as being, by all means take it up with them.

No, he starts top down with the “the Bible says, therefore…”, “soul” etc and tries to fit them into the gaps as if they have some kind of explanatory force.

He’s also doing the opposite of “talking the language of science”: he either ignores or denies the science without bothering with the falsification bit.

Why even bother lying about something so easily checked?

No, you are. The prevailing model is that consciousness is an emergent property of brains. “Soul” is just a top down conjecture used to deny that model because it contradicts religious dogma.

You’re rarely honest.

Then it’s been lost on you again. Logically and epistemically “soul” and “pixies with strings” are equivalent conjectures – they rely on identical false reasoning for their force: “You have gaps in your explanation, therefore (insert favourite supernatural something here) must be the answer, even though I have no evidence whatever for it".

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

I suggest a two-step plan for you:

1. Be honest.

2. Try thinking.

Let me know how you get on.

Possibly you missed Step 1 above?

Er, no – what it shows is the prevailing model of consciousness if you treat insects as analogous with neurons and the scent paths between them as analogous with synapses.

Folks working in the area have a long way to go to fill in the gaps, yes. As all that’s being said here though is there is only one investigable model that fits all the data – ie, emergence – then you appear to have ruined yet another pair of trousers with your latest error-strewn rant.

BlueHellside

To say there is no reason to believe in a soul and mean it one can only do that from the basis of physicalism..so no lie there.

I never even mentioned Pixies and yet you are trying to turd polish that misrepresentation.

There is a world apart between souls and pixies. You using the E word is pure ''power of the word JuJuism'' on your part.

Your suggestion that all an insect colony has to undergo to become conscious is to just increase it's number number of synapses tells us all we need to know about your understanding of consciousness and emergence and yes, I am saying it as though it was a bad thing.

[Gordon]

One is free to do that of course but to simultaneously as a body of antitheists argue that and to argue that God might be the devil or is the most evil because he flooded the world? I don't know whether that is the right way to go...

Or as Floo seems to be doing, Arguing that God must be more evil than the devil because he flooded the world while ignoring that the God she is talking about will also resurrect everyone.

That is cherrypicking and reverting to ''well I don't believe it anyway'' when your knowledge on the subject has been successfully challenged.

I'd agree, which is why I don't go down the 'god is evil route', but I still think the emphasis is on theists to show that there is a basis for taking these claims seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unless, of course, one adopts the position that there are no good reasons to think that either claim (resurrection of Jesus or global flood) is factually correct.

That Hillside's arguments keep rearing up is ample evidence of the resurrection of the dead.

[Gordon]

That Hillside's arguments keep rearing up is ample evidence of the resurrection of the dead.

No it isn't: don't be silly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd agree, which is why I don't go down the 'god is evil route', but I still think the emphasis is on theists to show that there is a basis for taking these claims seriously.

Were religion confined to suspension of the natural laws I would agree with caveat... however in the question of whether theism or naturalism has the greater burden I would call it equal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't: don't be silly.

That one was for ''The gallery''.

[Gordon]

Were religion confined to suspension of the natural laws I would agree with caveat... however in the question of whether theism or naturalism has the greater burden I would call it equal.

I wouldn't: naturalism involves methods that are amenable to review whereas theism has no discernible methods, so they aren't 'equal' and it would seem like a category error to say they were.

So, while you're spend your time trying to rubbish naturalism (or what you understand to be naturalism) you're saying nothing substantive about theism.

[floo]

I'm sorry but you seem to want the luxury of a point of view which states that God can be capable of crimes such as flooding the world but incapable of resurrecting people.

This is a bit of bigoted antitheist spin whereby you bowdlerise scripture to get left with the bad bits and ignore the good bits.
Against the usual trumped up charge of only wanting the good bits, I will acknowledge the bad news and the good news and take a reasonable overview. Bull atheists somehow find that impossible to do.

You should know by now that I don't believe the whole world was flooded, or that the Biblical god is anymore than a fictional character, albeit an unpleasant one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

To say there is no reason to believe in a soul and mean it one can only do that from the basis of physicalism..so no lie there.

First, it’s entirely possible to mean that there is no reason to believe there’s such a thing as “soul” without being an (extreme by the way) physicalist. If someone said, “there certainly is no such thing as “soul”” on the other hand you’d actually have a point.

Second, the lie is that you accuse me of (extreme) physicalism when I’ve made clear over and over again that I think no such thing. The basic philosophical problem with it is the risk of unknown unknowns – how would anyone who did think that way eliminate the possibility of there ever being something he didn’t know? That would be as logically and epistemically hopeless in it’s own way as asserting “soul”.

I never even mentioned Pixies and yet you are trying to turd polish that misrepresentation.

Fuck me – this is like wading through treacle. Pixies were used to illustrate the hopelessness of asserting “soul” when exactly the same arguments are used for each of them.

Could you at least try to grasp this before falling off a cliff again?

There is a world apart between souls and pixies. You using the E word is pure ''power of the word JuJuism'' on your part.

Groan… You’re making your old mistake of thinking that different characteristics can be retro-fitted to make a bad argument into a good one. “Soul” and “pixies” are epsitemically identical when exactly the same arguments are used for them regardless of the different characteristics you may attach to them.   

Your suggestion that all an insect colony has to undergo to become conscious is to just increase it's number number of synapses tells us all we need to know about your understanding of consciousness and emergence and yes, I am saying it as though it was a bad thing.

Then you’re making a fool of yourself again. For emergence purposes the difference between a termite colony and a brain is essentially complexity. Why is this confusing you?

[torridon]

Does it not seem ironic that you can dismiss our apparent human free will as an illusion, but you can assume an animal's conscious awareness is the same as human's because we can observe reactions to various stimuli?

Noone believes that consciousness is the same for every creature.  Who knows what it is like to be a bat or a horse or an octopus ?  But it must be like something, surely.  The implication that other animals have no awareness at all is without any justification.

[floo]

Noone believes that consciousness is the same for every creature.  Who knows what it is like to be a bat or a horse or an octopus ?  But it must be like something, surely.  The implication that other animals have no awareness at all is without any justification.

We have had a number of dogs over the years and some of them have been very aware. They all knew whom they liked and whom they didn't. They also knew how to get into our good books as well!