Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2017, 03:11 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(30-01-2017 12:57 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 08:31 AM)mordant Wrote:  In fairness I think the "brain as transceiver" hypothesis is the ONLY hypothesis that could even remotely explain experienced reality (e.g., brain damage) in a way that comports itself with the notion that consciousness is not inextricably emergent from biological processes and substrates, and yet would still work if consciousness were somehow separate from the brain. It is at least an attempt to reconcile the two, and I've seen far more flawed attempts to reconcile mystic / spiritual / supernatural beliefs with observable reality.

cannot ... parse ... can't track no double-negatives ... Weeping

1) "brain as transceiver" is consistent with the notion that consciousness is not an emergent property.
2) "brain as transceiver" is consistent with dualism.

Yes?

What am I missing? The "and yet" bit is confusing me. Is there an implicit assertion that "brain as transceiver" is consistent with consciousness as an emergent property?
Not consistent with it, sorry. Poor explanation. The transceiver concept simply explains how consciousness could be separate from the body while still explaining how it appears not to be separate. It would explain how brain damage could interfere with cognition even though consciousness isn't dependent on the body. (At least superficially -- I'm sure it can be shown that in many types of brain damage, not just communication / expression is damaged, but cognition itself. Beyond a certain point, explaining these as distortions of a clear transmission from an external consciousness, likely breaks down, as when there are massive personality or temperament changes.

I wasn't suggesting the hypothesis was airtight, just giving it an A for effort.
(30-01-2017 12:57 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 08:31 AM)mordant Wrote:  The main problem with the hypothesis is that there is literally no evidence for it, and quite a lot of evidence against it. It is an example of an explanation that could fit the facts, but gets shot down by evidence (and the fact that the only way to falsify it is to put a living human in a Faraday cage and observe that they become unconscious or at least like a zombie because they are cut off from the "antenna", and this clearly never happens, and you are then reduced to claiming that your hypothesized consciousness "field" is an example of a natural force (or, worse, supernatural force) that we don't yet know how to shield from).
A compass still works inside a Faraday cage. Doesn't keep all EM out. I don't know if proponents of "mind as a fundamental force" appeal to simultaneous invention but it is a fascinating phenomena.
Point taken, but it seems that humans whose brains are transceivers, would have problems with reception miles beneath the earth in a mine, or in the midst of a violent storm, or during solar flares. Theories about discarnate minds seem to be awfully dependent on eldritch supernatural-style forces or misbegotten applications of the word "quantum". Also I think we understand enough about the physical world that it's unlikely there's a major sort of information transfer going on that we've somehow totally missed in our current science or don't feel the absence of in our theoretical physics.

I've debated a liberal theist elsewhere who likes to go on about how the universe is mostly made up of dark matter that we can't even detect or measure and he pins all his hopes on the unknowns surrounding that to preserve the viability of his unique fusion of Christianity and panentheism, which causes him to claim that we are part of a "consciousness field".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2017, 03:54 PM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2017 08:11 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(30-01-2017 03:11 PM)mordant Wrote:  Not consistent with it, sorry. Poor explanation. The transceiver concept simply explains how consciousness could be separate from the body while still explaining how it appears not to be separate. It would explain how brain damage could interfere with cognition even though consciousness isn't dependent on the body.

I see. It's a dualist doing back flips and somersaults to account for brain damage behavior given the presumed independence of consciousness. Not clear why they felt the need to defend that particular point instead of just going with "his soul is touched by God" but okay. Some twisted bastard must've trolled them into it.

(30-01-2017 03:11 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(30-01-2017 12:57 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  A compass still works inside a Faraday cage. Doesn't keep all EM out. I don't know if proponents of "mind as a fundamental force" appeal to simultaneous invention but it is a fascinating phenomena.
Point taken, but it seems that humans whose brains are transceivers, would have problems with reception miles beneath the earth in a mine,

Sorry, I was attempting to steer the conversation into the fascinating topic of simultaneous invention. Seems like some dualist somewhere must've appealed to that already.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2017, 07:24 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
10 computers all connected to the same server, from which each computer uses to process a problem, should all come up with the same answer.

If 10 humans are taking a test, it seems evident that each person is deriving each answer from an independent source of information, ie; their own brain.

If all humans are tapping into the same intelligence, shouldn't they all come up with the same answer to every question ever posed ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
31-01-2017, 01:02 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
Deity is avatar of group consciousness. There's a geometry of you, me, and god; a fundamental metaphysical triangle, a basis of structure.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
31-01-2017, 01:21 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(31-01-2017 01:02 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Deity is avatar of group consciousness. There's a geometry of you, me, and god; a fundamental metaphysical triangle, a basis of structure.

The future is inextricably connected to universal chaos.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
01-02-2017, 02:09 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 04:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Then why can't that "intelligence" cure cancer in innocent babies, and feed starving children ... or is THAT the "plan" to have innocent children suffer and die ?
Is THAT "intelligent design" ? Laugh out loadLaugh out load
An analogous argument to this would be that every physical ingredient of personal computers and the internet existed in the day of Jesus - why didn't He just reveal these tools to the Apostles to promulgate the faith?

The resources for zero kids to be starving exist. What is lacking is the charity of humans to be the instrument of the delivery of these resources where they are needed. As to cancer - the same mechanism that has assured the evolution of humans from microbes is the same mechanism that causes cancer in innocent children. The same forces that create the rain for the crops result in hurricanes in Haiti. The suffering of these realities is lessened by the charity of gracious people.

That's how it works.

(27-01-2017 04:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We just had (IN THIS THREAD) the same bullshit from Tomato. When asked "how much is too much" *design* or what the actual cut-off or criteria for this "I see design" vs *no design* (a SUBJECTIVE judgment based on ignorance, with NO CRITERA) as we KNOW order arises spontaneously in this universe, they can never answer. This one can't either. We know the biochemical pathways much of Evolution took or could have taken, spontaneously.

So ok. WE'RE READY !
Let's have the great revelation already.
Design is evidenced in purpose, and intelligence is evidenced in design. That's the progression.

It seems to me that you haven't thought much of this through...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2017, 02:10 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 04:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Facepalm
So then he's not really a Catholic. No Catholic would say that.
How not surprising.
The nut-of-the-week with his own definitions and his own little one-man cult.
Well this never happened before. Dodgy
Lol...I actually paraphrased Bishop Robert Barron in my description of God.

Do you know what you are talking about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2017, 02:17 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(27-01-2017 05:12 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  
(27-01-2017 04:10 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  My Deity is the sheer will of existence.

Could you please elaborate on that?
Thomas Aquinas has given us the following terms - In the "rational mind", we have "intellect" and "will". Intellect analyzes and discerns, and then there is a choice. The will then enacts the choice to realize it and express it upon the external existence.

So when I describe God as "the sheer will of existence", I am describing God as the author of every mechanism, every force, every constant, every immutable, and every substance that has resulted in the existence of me. Every mutation, every natural selection, every cosmic event - every action that had to occur to result in my existence - this is God. As these are actions following intelligence, I describe this as "will".

I have a pet theory that "intelligence" is an immutable like "gravity" - it simply "is". Humans can recognize it, can measure and can harness it, but haven't yet created it or fully comprehend it - exactly like gravity.

I see a lot of atheist believe the human mind as the source of intelligence. This to me makes as much sense as asserting that a flat earth is the center of the universe, with everything moving around it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JHaysPE's post
01-02-2017, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2017 03:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(01-02-2017 02:09 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  The resources for zero kids to be starving exist. What is lacking is the charity of humans to be the instrument of the delivery of these resources where they are needed. As to cancer - the same mechanism that has assured the evolution of humans from microbes is the same mechanism that causes cancer in innocent children. The same forces that create the rain for the crops result in hurricanes in Haiti. The suffering of these realities is lessened by the charity of gracious people.

That's how it works.

Except it doesn't work. The KIDS still starve, and your deity sits on his ass. And if there was intervention or *design* the forces would be tuned, so children didn't get cancer. You're not helping yourself here. But nice try at rationalizing the suffering of innocents. An omnipotent deity would have the means to "make it work" some other way, and not let the starving kids be the victims, (unless that deity is subject to Reality, and not its master).

1. Provide evidence that what you claim is true, (resources) and
2. the problem is not resources, it's the MEANS for distribution, NOW, which includes the willingness of the donors to do it. That does not exist. Possibilities do not help children, and are not an excuse for your lazy god.
3. Millions of babies starved when there were not enough resources nor the means for distribution .. so your point is invalid. You have no rebuttal, and your lazy-ass god *could* do something, but does not. (But then, an "immutable" deity can't *act* by definition, now can it).

(27-01-2017 04:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We just had (IN THIS THREAD) the same bullshit from Tomato. When asked "how much is too much" *design* or what the actual cut-off or criteria for this "I see design" vs *no design* (a SUBJECTIVE judgment based on ignorance, with NO CRITERA) as we KNOW order arises spontaneously in this universe, they can never answer. This one can't either. We know the biochemical pathways much of Evolution took or could have taken, spontaneously.

So ok. WE'RE READY !
Let's have the great revelation already.

Quote:Design is evidenced in purpose, and intelligence is evidenced in design. That's the progression.

Meaningless drivel. And NOT ONE example.
The life of a black hole is about 10^100 years. For an infinitesimally small fraction of that time, humans have been around. Obviously the universe was not designed for man. Not such a good designer is he, if the purpose is us and our "salvation", (which BTW, makes NO sense ..), but then you never studied any relevant topic, as you have demonstrated.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ic-Origins


Quote:It seems to me that you haven't thought much of this through...

On the contrary, you just demonstrated who has not thought anything through.
Weeping

BTW

Quote:Thomas Aquinas has given us the following terms - In the "rational mind", we have "intellect" and "will". Intellect analyzes and discerns, and then there is a choice. The will then enacts the choice to realize it and express it upon the external existence.

Modern Neuro-science knows that decisions are made BEFORE we are fully conscious of them, and we are never totally conscious of all the elements that go into a choice (thus invalidating the entire body of Moral Theology). References upon request. http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/bra...you-decide
You really should take some science classes and join the 21st Century, and dump this Medieval nonsense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-02-2017, 02:24 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(01-02-2017 02:17 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  So when I describe God as "the sheer will of existence", I am describing God as the author of every mechanism, every force, every constant, every immutable, and every substance that has resulted in the existence of me. Every mutation, every natural selection, every cosmic event - every action that had to occur to result in my existence - this is God.
We already have a perfectly adequate term for what you are describing here: cause and effect. You are at the end of a causal chain. If you want to worship the causal chain as god, then you are in the company of pantheists, panentheists, and to a lesser extent deists, who just relabel existence or the universe as "god". It's basically the same thing with more of a focus on the mechanics or forces than on the outcome of them.
(01-02-2017 02:17 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  As these are actions following intelligence, I describe this as "will".
What makes you believe that natural forces have agency?
(01-02-2017 02:17 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  I have a pet theory that "intelligence" is an immutable like "gravity" - it simply "is". Humans can recognize it, can measure and can harness it, but haven't yet created it or fully comprehend it - exactly like gravity.
In my experience, intelligence quite often "just is not" ;-)
(01-02-2017 02:17 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  I see a lot of atheist believe the human mind as the source of intelligence. This to me makes as much sense as asserting that a flat earth is the center of the universe, with everything moving around it.
Speaking more generically and accurately, minds are the source of intelligence, by definition, which is: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". They don't have to be human minds, but they have to be minds. Natural processes do not have minds.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: