Karma

[torridon]

But you said that you could see beauty in things so you must believe it's true or real. If that is the case you need to investigate what it means to you and how and why you, your human nature, creates or needs to do this. Nothing comes out of a vacuum.

I look at a daffodil and it triggers a response in me which we might broadly file under 'aesthetic'.  A honey bee looks at the same daffodil and something similar is triggered in the bee's tiny brain.  Hence pollination; hence ecosystems, hence people chatting on internet messageboards.  You're right, nothing comes out of a vacuum, everything is interconnected.  Physics tells us we need to abandon the whole concept of 'nothing'.

[torridon]

You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.

Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!

The point of these pixie analogies is to demonstrate that god, too, is made up.  It is just that we have a harder time recognising that because the notion of god is that much more deeply culturally embedded into the human psyche.  There is no more factual evidence for gods than there is for spaghetti monsters, so why do humans believe in gods but not in flying monsters ?

[Alan Burns]

AB,
Yes they are defined by the same laws (and forces). “Objective” and “subjective” are just useful terms to describe the difference between phenomena we observe that are “out there”, and opinions and beliefs that are self-generated. Within the paradigm of the appearance of “free” will it’s a helpful distinction, and there’s no need for an “ultimate” therefore.

So if subjectivity is based on the paradigm of the appearance of “free” will, would you say the concept of subjectivity itself is an illusion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not to a neuroscientist studying the 'mass of electrochemical signals' in a person's brain, I agree.  But for the person who is that mass of electrochemical signals, that is subjective experience.  The only way to experience something subjectively is to be it; subjectivity arises out of being.  Cue solipsism.

So all being experiences itself then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point of these pixie analogies is to demonstrate that god, too, is made up.

Please demonstrate that pixies are made up.
Also explain the argument ''pixies are made up therefore God is made up'' and also ''pixies are made up therefore spoons are not made up''...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So if subjectivity is based on the paradigm of the appearance of “free” will, would you say the concept of subjectivity itself is an illusion?

Depends what you mean by “illusion”. It serves well enough as a working delineation of “from the mind” as opposed to what’s “out there”. The arrangement of parts that makes up a rose for example is just “there” ("objective"); whether someone finds it beautiful or not on the other hand is his response to it ("subjective").

Whether ultimately (if there even is an “ultimately”) the separation is meaningful is anyone’s guess. A Buddhist for example might say that it’s all part of the same continuum, while Bishop Berkely posited that we create the “out there” for ourselves in any case – the “brain in a vat” idea - so it's all subjective in any case.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

The trouble is though that a mass of electrochemical signals is not a subjective thing is it.

Not to the person observing it, no.

Neither is anything it generates.

That's wrong. The thing it "generates" is you (and me), and we are subjective beings. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Not to the person observing it, no.

That's wrong. The thing it "generates" is you (and me), and we are subjective beings.

You used the word generates.
So what you are saying is that when enough physical components are put together then a non physical unmeasurable is generated?...

So you can be a being AND subjective then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Please demonstrate that pixies are made up.

I can't - they're unfalsifiable. Just like "God".

Also explain the argument ''pixies are made up therefore God is made up''...

That's not an argument that anyone has made.

....and also ''pixies are made up therefore spoons are not made up''...

And nor is that.

Yet again, here's what's actually been said: "If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument."

Thus if you want to try, say, "You can't falsify God, therefore God" you have no choice but to accept the same construction with "leprechauns" substituted for "God".

It really is that simple.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

You used the word generates.

No, you did. Here in fact:

The trouble is though that a mass of electrochemical signals is not a subjective thing is it. Neither is anything it generates.

(Reply 220)

So what you are saying is that when enough physical components are put together then a non physical unmeasurable is generated?...

No-one has said that something "non-physical" is generated - that's something you've just made up.

So you can be a being AND subjective then.

You are a "being", you generate opinions and beliefs "subjectively". So what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

I can't - they're unfalsifiable. Just like "God".

That's not an argument that anyone has made.

And nor is that.

Yet again, here's what's actually been said: "If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument."

Thus if you want to try, say, "You can't falsify God, therefore God"

Nobody has said that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet again, here's what's actually been said: "If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument."

Yes, you have chuffed on about this since I've known you.
But you haven't had the balls to explain how you are making a serious point rather than depending on ridicule.
In other words what is intrinsically different between this statement:

Philosophical Naturalism is unfalsifiable and God is unfalsifiable.
Leprechauns are unfalsifiable and God is unfalsifiable.

Arguing Philosophical naturalism is respectable but leprechauns and God are not.
How then do you arrive at this?.....Find some ''cojones'' and report back to us if you please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

No, you did. Here in fact:

(Reply 220)

No-one has said that something "non-physical" is generated - that's something you've just made up.

I'm actually asking you a question....stop shuffling.
So you are saying that everything about a person, even his or her subjective being is measurable by science?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Nobody has said that.

If you insist on lying here, why do it about statements you've made that are so easily checked?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Yes, you have chuffed on about this since I've known you.
But you haven't had the balls to explain how you are making a serious point rather than depending on ridicule.
In other words what is intrinsically different between this statement:

Philosophical Naturalism is unfalsifiable and God is unfalsifiable.
Leprechauns are unfalsifiable and God is unfalsifiable.

Arguing Philosophical naturalism is respectable but leprechauns and God are not.
How then do you arrive at this?.....Find some ''cojones'' and report back to us if you please.

First, it's impossible to have a conversation with you about "philosophical naturalism" as your version of it is a private definition used only by you in order to make a point, albeit a spurious one.

Second, as both "God" and "leprechauns" are unfalsifiable conjectures, surely even you can see that using their non-falsifiability as an argument for their existence existence is a bad idea can't you?

Can't you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

I'm actually asking you a question....stop shuffling.

No, you accused me of using a word ("generates") that was in fact a quote from a post of yours. Your correct reply here is to apologise for your mistake.

So you are saying that everything about a person, even his or her subjective being is measurable by science?

Depends whether you men "currently" or "in principle". If the former, I doubt it; if the latter, then as there's no cogent reason to think there to be a "non-physical" then potentially at least, yes.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#233

Also explain the argument ''pixies are made up therefore God is made up''...

That's not an argument that anyone has made.

Erm…#226

... Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!

The point of these pixie analogies is to demonstrate that god, too, is made up.  It is just that we have a harder time recognising that because the notion of god is that much more deeply culturally embedded into the human psyche.

Hence the question

Also explain the argument ''pixies are made up therefore God is made up''...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

"Also explain the argument ''pixies are made up therefore God is made up''...

You still don't get it. You could just as well use "X" in place of "leprechauns" or "God" - the "you can't falsify it, therefore it's true" argument would still be a fallacious one for any outcome. The use of leprechauns, a celestial teapot etc merely accentuates the ludicrousness of that argument, but it's not pivotal to falsifying it.

That's why your "you've just picked something we all agree is made up" fails - it doesn't matter a jot what you pick: the NPF is a false argument regardless of its outcome, as for that matter is any other argument that appears to validate "leprechauns" as readily as it appears to validate "God".   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

No, you accused me of using a word ("generates") that was in fact a quote from a post of yours. Your correct reply here is to apologise for your mistake.

Depends whether you men "currently" or "in principle". If the former, I doubt it; if the latter, then as there's no cogent reason to think there to be a "non-physical" then potentially at least, yes.

My apologies I had failed to notice that you have in fact said that the subjective being just is without feeling the need to make the link between the collection of material and its organisation and the subjective being. That is the equivalent of crying uncle i'm afraid.

You have yet again confirmed your scientism too.

Since a claim that there is no cogent reason is a positive assertion feel free to justify. Unfortunately until they can transfer subjective being you remain the philosophical zombie and I the real deal.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

My apologies I had failed to notice that you have in fact said that the subjective being just is without feeling the need to make the link between the collection of material and its organisation and the subjective being. That is the equivalent of crying uncle i'm afraid.

Presumably that random jumble of words meant something in your head when at least you typed it?

You have yet again confirmed your scientism too.

Not only haven't I "confirmed" its actual meaning, nor have I confirmed your personal straw man re-definition of it.

Since a claim that there is no cogent reason is a positive assertion feel free to justify.

You never have understood the burden of proof problem have you. If you want to assert the supernatural, the non-material etc then it's for you to make an argument for it. That no-one has ever managed it is a commonplace, but hey - who's to say that you won't be the black swan. Knock yourself out...

Unfortunately until they can transfer subjective being you remain the philosophical zombie and I the real deal.

Sadly, typing incomprehensible gibberish, re-defining words to suit your purpose, and and lying about the arguments that undo you does not make you a "deal" of any kind, let alone a real one.

Apart from that though...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

You still don't get it. You could just as well use "X" in place of "leprechauns" or "God" - the "you can't falsify it, therefore it's true" argument would still be a fallacious one for any outcome.

You were told a few posts back that no one is saying that and here you are ''perpetuating the turd''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

You were told a few posts back that no one is saying that and here you are ''perpetuating the turd''.

That's exactly what you've said - every time you attack the use of leprechauns because they're more obviously made up than "God" in fact rather than grasp that the argument has nothing to do with that. 

Still, god know that you're all shiny and polished now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Presumably that random jumble of words meant something in your head when at least you typed it?

Not only haven't I "confirmed" its actual meaning, nor have I confirmed your personal straw man re-definition of it.

You never have understood the burden of proof problem have you. If you want to assert the supernatural, the non-material etc then it's for you to make an argument for it. That no-one has ever managed it is a commonplace, but hey - who's to say that you won't be the black swan. Knock yourself out...

Sadly, typing incomprehensible gibberish, re-defining words to suit your purpose, and and lying about the arguments that undo you does not make you a "deal" of any kind, let alone a real one.

Apart from that though...

Suggesting that putting a collection of material elements together in increasingly more complex ways and then hey presto the subjective being is no argument Hillside it's a lot of noise, fluff and guff and it's an intellectually slack way of statin' the bleedin' obvious.......particularly thin stuff on your part.

A bit of bob's your uncle and hand waving.

For good measure it would not make one iota of difference if a human was completely measureable since the Bible acknowledges we are all creations anyway. That the subjective being is physical is vital for you though but here's the rub.......until we can transfer and share the personal experience we aren't going to be sure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

That's exactly what you've said - every time you attack the use of leprechauns because they're more obviously made up than "God" in fact rather than grasp that the argument has nothing to do with that. 

Still, god know that you're all shiny and polished now.

Actually I've always said Leprechauns are falsifiable....sorry to piss on your bonfire.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

Actually lots of “someones” – which in part at least is why we see such diversity of opinions on the matter. There also though seems to be a common intuitive sense of the beautiful – hence pretty much everyone liking the way sunsets look.

But those “signals” tell us what happens in brains when someone experiences “beautiful”. Your analogy fails because, well, it’s not analogous. The full experience of “beauty” can be mapped (at least in principle), and presumably can be created artificially too given the right stimuli. So what? 

No, it is the point. And you’re attempting an argument from incredulity here but, nonetheless, what make you think that this “mass” of electro-chemical signals is insufficient to create a subjective experience?

You seem to be edging toward a Cartesian mind/body separation here.

Once again your types are missing my point.

'From incredulity' - It is an argument not some ideological position.