what is a god

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You really don't seem to get philosophy

But he is a philosopher. He must be because he told us so.

[Moontanman]

On 4/30/2018 at 12:07 PM, dimreepr said:

There is a third way, one that doesn't depend on God, faith or trust, being honest with oneself. I do understand that this is closer to science than religion but both sides are capable of this epiphany, the proximity of either side has little value without the final step. 

 

Again, I would really like for you to explain this third way you speak of. I really don't understand what you are saying... 

[dimreepr]

One way is to dismiss evidence because it doesn't agree with you, another way is to dismiss an argument because you don't agree, the third way is, none of the above.

[smokequitterv2]

Even though i am a bit religious , i was thinking about ditching my religion .

Why ?

Its a boring religion , that is why and every religious people i encounter  from my own religion ***** *****

Once upon a time , i dug really hard into my religion hoping to find some connections to space , science , physics etc

There are little little parts of all those in it , but never a complete picture , i wonder why all the religions are like that .

Always little parts of it , but never a complete picture

Therefore sometimes i feel like staying away from all the religions , But as soon as morning starts , the speakers in the temple , the mosques starts screaming .

Leave us in peace , I personally love silence above all the things

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

One way is to dismiss evidence because it doesn't agree with you, another way is to dismiss an argument because you don't agree, the third way is, none of the above.

 

How about being honest and saying "I don't know"? 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Again, I would really like for you to explain this third way you speak of. I really don't understand what you are saying... 

 

[Gees]

  Dimreepr;

 

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 10:05 AM, dimreepr said:

Yes, essentially with anyone who disagrees with you, as opposed to your response to those that agree.  

No, but that seems to be a case in point, ie. did you though? Or did you just write more than anyone wanted to read?

I miss Tar, at least he didn't resort to insults and abuse.

Actually, Tar and I disagreed a lot. Some of the issues we resolved, some we didn't. But he never resorted to the click-it button to make an argument -- neither did I.

I miss him too. You know why he's gone don't you? The click-it squad drove him out. It's too bad he never learned to be insulting and abusive, because iNow got two positive rep points for calling me a "blowhard" and an "airhead".

Gee

[Gees]

Strange;

 

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:04 PM, Strange said:

No it isn't. Unless you are redefining the word "conscious" so as to render it pretty much meaningless.

Citation needed.

Well, Strange, there are a lot of words that mean conscious. Pick up your thesaurus and you will find many of them, to sense, to perceive, to be aware, etc., then if you go to the SEP, you will find more words to define consciousness like self-awareness, and being aware of being aware, or phenomenal consciousness, etc. Every theory of consciousness comes up with their own definitions, so which ones do you think I should choose out of the pages of information that is available? After a neurologist explained to me that all life is sentient, I tried to use that word, but a lot of people think that sentient means thinking and bacteria and daffodils do not think -- as far as I know. Everyone wants to argue about any term that I use, but all the terms mean consciousness.

In a forum where everyone is bitching at me to simplify things, I don't see how I could simplify it more than by stating that I am reserving consciousness to life forms and that consciousness simply means awareness.

Go to the Biology forum and ask why viruses are not life forms. Or better yet, ask CharonY why we can grow a cell from another cell, or manipulate the DNA in a cell, or clone a cell, or kill a cell, but we can not make a cell from something inanimate. We can not imbue it with the awareness that it needs to make itself continue -- consciousness.

 

Quote

 

Of course it is related to consciousness because (conscious) humans invented it.

I guess that when you say "they don't understand it" you mean they disagree with you?

 

No. What I mean is that they rationalize the idea by calling it imagination or wishful thinking, or they simply believe what they want. But they do not understand it because they do not analyze it.

Gee

[Bender]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

We can not imbue it with the awareness that it needs to make itself continue -- consciousness.

I can imbue a toaster with the awareness it needs.

[Gees]

Ten oz;

 

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 4:40 PM, Ten oz said:

Convincing people of something typically isn't the point of philosophical discussion. Generally clarity and diversity of perspective is. 

On the other hand, if people choose to ignore established fact and Science, then how much "clarity" can there be in a discussion? If I wanted fantasy, I would just pick up a good book of fiction -- lots of diversity and perspective there.

 

Quote

By most people do you actually mean most atheists? My impression of ardently religious people's views are that they believe God is related to the human spirit/soul and that our spirits/souls are the source of our consciousnesses. 

No. When I mean "atheists", I say, "atheists". Is it that much trouble to ask people to read what I state instead of what they think I might mean?

Well, I think that view has some truth in it. A few years back, I figured out that spirituality is actually awareness, feeling, and emotion, or what I called the second division of consciousness as explained in my thread, Consciousness and Evolution.

It is my opinion that when people say "soul" and when they say "mind", they are actually talking about the same thing and just using different words. It is a matter of semantics. But when people use the word "soulmates", they are not talking about a meeting of the minds or thought; they are talking about a much deeper connection that includes emotion. The word "soul" is thought of as having more emotional emphasis than the word "mind".

Mind, just like soul, is the person's self or self identity, but when we say "mind", we are generally talking about our thoughts, plans, ideas, etc. No one really knows what the parameters of mind are, or what sets those parameters, but I suspect that it has to be the body. We each have one mind/soul and one body, but there can be exceptions. Sometimes physical damage to the brain can cause a division of mind, emotional stresses as in Multiple Personality Disorders can also cause divisions of mind. And lest we forget, many mental disorders like schizophrenia seem to be caused by a break down of the divisions of mind bringing the conscious aspect into direct communication with the unconscious aspect.

We treat mental disorders like schizophrenia with chemicals, mostly hormones, to try to correct these problems. So we know that chemicals and emotion are both capable of setting or resetting the parameters of mind. We also know that emotion causes the production of hormones and that hormones cause emotion -- it is circular. This led me to question whether or not emotion was relevant to the formation of mind, but I have not yet gotten an answer to that question. So I think that emotion is relevant to mind.

Spirits is the understanding we have of souls that can be outside of the body. Although I have heard of people, who have out-of-body experiences, I am of the opinion that without a body this experience can not continue. So in death, this wholeness of a spirit would not be maintainable. 

If "God" is an interpretation of emotion, then yes, it could be interpreted this way.

Gee

12 minutes ago, Bender said:

I can imbue a toaster with the awareness it needs.

How?

[Bender]

46 minutes ago, Gees said:

How?

By putting a temperature sensor and a timer in, together with the required circuits to interpret and use their output.

Just like how bacteria perceive stimuli and react to them.

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Gees said:

You know why he's gone don't you? The click-it squad drove him out.

I very much doubt that his skin was thicker than a rhino.

19 hours ago, Gees said:

It's too bad he never learned to be insulting and abusive, because iNow got two positive rep points for calling me a "blowhard" and an "airhead".

A rep point, either way, contains valuable information if you're willing to swallow/contain your pride.

[Ten oz]

20 hours ago, Gees said:

Well, I think that view has some truth in it. A few years back, I figured out that spirituality is actually awareness, feeling, and emotion, or what I called the second division of consciousness as explained in my thread, Consciousness and Evolution.

My perception is that those who view spirituality as a real thing supernaturally or consciously generally always have their own floating definition of what it is. 

20 hours ago, Gees said:

It is my opinion that when people say "soul" and when they say "mind", they are actually talking about the same thing and just using different words. It is a matter of semantics. But when people use the word "soulmates", they are not talking about a meeting of the minds or thought; they are talking about a much deeper connection that includes emotion. The word "soul" is thought of as having more emotional emphasis than the word "mind".

Mind, just like soul, is the person's self or self identity, but when we say "mind", we are generally talking about our thoughts, plans, ideas, etc. No one really knows what the parameters of mind are, or what sets those parameters, but I suspect that it has to be the body. We each have one mind/soul and one body, but there can be exceptions. Sometimes physical damage to the brain can cause a division of mind, emotional stresses as in Multiple Personality Disorders can also cause divisions of mind. And lest we forget, many mental disorders like schizophrenia seem to be caused by a break down of the divisions of mind bringing the conscious aspect into direct communication with the unconscious aspect

I disagree. I know many religious people who believe they they have a soul/spirit which can and one day will exist entirely separate from their biology bodies. I also know many people who claim to have seen souls/spirits of dead people. Additionally many religious people believe they will receive new bodies after death. Some believe their new bodies will be created by god and others believe they will be reincarnated, re-born, into new living bodies. 

20 hours ago, Gees said:

We treat mental disorders like schizophrenia with chemicals, mostly hormones, to try to correct these problems. So we know that chemicals and emotion are both capable of setting or resetting the parameters of mind. We also know that emotion causes the production of hormones and that hormones cause emotion -- it is circular. This led me to question whether or not emotion was relevant to the formation of mind, but I have not yet gotten an answer to that question. So I think that emotion is relevant to mind.

If by "We" you mean you and I than I agree. If by "We" you mean all humans I disagree. Humans overall have a lot of different crazy ideas.

20 hours ago, Gees said:

Spirits is the understanding we have of souls that can be outside of the body. Although I have heard of people, who have out-of-body experiences, I am of the opinion that without a body this experience can not continue. So in death, this wholeness of a spirit would not be maintainable. 

Can you elaborate on what you mean? 

[interested]

On 4/16/2018 at 3:15 PM, dimreepr said:

Who cares?

Roughly translated, God knows, or who gives a fuck.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, interested said:

Roughly translated, God knows, or who gives a fuck.

It's more than that and why the question is so polarised, if only it were that simple; if nobody gave a fuck, the problem would disappear. 

It's those who care that gives power to a God, whatever side you're on.

Edited May 5, 2018 by dimreepr

[Gees]

Bender;

 

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 4:05 PM, Bender said:

I can imbue a toaster with the awareness it needs.

 

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 5:06 PM, Bender said:

By putting a temperature sensor and a timer in, together with the required circuits to interpret and use their output.

Just like how bacteria perceive stimuli and react to them.

So you hold a position similar to Dr. Frankenstein's, that the source of life is electricity. Interesting.

Could you show me how to install a sensor, timer, and circuits in my toaster? It occurs to me that if I do it right, I could possibly have little baby toasters scooting around my counter in a few months, and if they grow fast enough, I can give them away as Christmas presents. This would save me a lot of aggravation and shopping.

Of course, if they multiply too quickly (like rabbits) I would have to find a way to limit that. Maybe I could just shorten the cords on some of them so they can't reach the electrical outlets. Brilliant.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed it. 

Gee

 

[koti]

1 minute ago, Gees said:

Bender;

 

 

So you hold a position similar to Dr. Frankenstein's, that the source of life is electricity. Interesting.

Could you show me how to install a sensor, timer, and circuits in my toaster? It occurs to me that if I do it right, I could possibly have little baby toasters scooting around my counter in a few months, and if they grow fast enough, I can give them away as Christmas presents. This would save me a lot of aggravation and shopping.

Of course, if they multiply too quickly (like rabbits) I would have to find a way to limit that. Maybe I could just shorten the cords on some of them so they can't reach the electrical outlets. Brilliant.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed it. 

Gee

 

Many people are incapable of reproduction yet they are undoubtedly aware.

[Gees]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 8:49 AM, dimreepr said:

A rep point, either way, contains valuable information if you're willing to swallow/contain your pride.

Agreed. Now all we have to do is decide what that information is, and whether or not it is valuable to Science.

Gee

[Bender]

8 minutes ago, Gees said:

Bender;

 

 

So you hold a position similar to Dr. Frankenstein's, that the source of life is electricity. Interesting.

Could you show me how to install a sensor, timer, and circuits in my toaster? It occurs to me that if I do it right, I could possibly have little baby toasters scooting around my counter in a few months, and if they grow fast enough, I can give them away as Christmas presents. This would save me a lot of aggravation and shopping.

Of course, if they multiply too quickly (like rabbits) I would have to find a way to limit that. Maybe I could just shorten the cords on some of them so they can't reach the electrical outlets. Brilliant.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed it. 

Gee

 

Nice that you had a laugh, but I was dead serious.

We are not talking about "alive" or "fertile"; we are talking about "aware" (or "conscious", since you seem to conflate those).

My claim is that if bacteria are aware/conscious; so is my toaster.

[Gees]

Koti;

 

6 minutes ago, koti said:

Many people are incapable of reproduction yet they are undoubtedly aware.

This is not true.

They may be incapable of reproducing another person, but they are very capable of reproducing more cells. We regularly and routinely reproduce the cells in our bodies. We call it growth until we reach our maturity, then we call it maintaining our bodies. When cell growth stops or slows, as in old age, it forecasts death. When we stop reproducing cells, we die and lose consciousness.

Gee

Bender;

 

7 minutes ago, Bender said:

Nice that you had a laugh, but I was dead serious.

We are not talking about "alive" or "fertile"; we are talking about "aware" (or "conscious", since you seem to conflate those).

My claim is that if bacteria are aware/conscious; so is my toaster.

Fine. I am not going to argue Biology with you.

Gee

 

Ten oz;

Well, that was the third down vote, so I am out of here. I intended to respond to your questions because I think you sincerely want answers, so if you are still interested send me a PM.

Gee

 

[koti]

52 minutes ago, Gees said:

Koti;

 

This is not true.

They may be incapable of reproducing another person, but they are very capable of reproducing more cells. We regularly and routinely reproduce the cells in our bodies. We call it growth until we reach our maturity, then we call it maintaining our bodies. When cell growth stops or slows, as in old age, it forecasts death. When we stop reproducing cells, we die and lose consciousness.

Gee

It is a difficult task to lead a discussion if you chose to comprehend reproduction as cell reproduction and not procreaction when the context is extremely clearly pointing to the latter. 

[CharonY]

On 5/5/2018 at 2:15 PM, Gees said:

When cell growth stops or slows, as in old age,

That does not happen. Aging cells do stop proliferating, but cell proliferation does not stop with age of the organism (if we exclude very small ones, where cellular aging overlaps with organismal aging). There are shifts in which cells proliferate to some degree, though. Sometimes an organisms dies because the wrong cells aggressively proliferate (i.e. they get cancer). More importantly, throughout life, different cell lines continue to proliferate, whereas others are terminal. Some organs (such as pancreas) rely on constant renewal.

 

On 5/5/2018 at 2:15 PM, Gees said:

When we stop reproducing cells, we die and lose consciousness.

We die very well before that point.

[Gees]

CharonY;

It is a pleasure to talk to someone, who is well trained and knows what they are talking about.

 

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

That does not happen. Aging cells do stop proliferating, but cell proliferation does not stop with age of the organism (if we exclude very small ones, where cellular aging overlaps with organismal aging). There are shifts in which cells proliferate to some degree, though. Sometimes an organisms dies because the wrong cells aggressively proliferate (i.e. they get cancer). More importantly, throughout life, different cell lines continue to proliferate, whereas others are terminal. Some organs (such as pancreas) rely on constant renewal.

This is what comes from watching too much television; all of those infomercials about "aging skin" led me to believe that the entire body worked that way. So are you saying that different types of cells work differently from others and can be on a different time schedule? I am not requesting a specific breakdown, just a general idea. Is it also true that hormones regulate a lot of the starting and stopping or slowing of cell growth?

 

Quote

This is what I wrote: They may be incapable of reproducing another person, but they are very capable of reproducing more cells. We regularly and routinely reproduce the cells in our bodies. We call it growth until we reach our maturity, then we call it maintaining our bodies. When cell growth stops or slows, as in old age, it forecasts death. When we stop reproducing cells, we die and lose consciousness.

Following is your response to the above:

Quote

We die very well before that point.

This is interesting. Are you talking about clinical death where the body is still working and being supported by life support systems? Or are you saying that if we were not embalmed, as in the old days, the cells would continue for some time? Are we talking hours, days, weeks, longer?

If we had something like cancer, could the cancer growth continue after we are dead and our bodies stopped producing? Weird thought.

 

Quote

This is also what I wrote: Go to the Biology forum and ask why viruses are not life forms. Or better yet, ask CharonY why we can grow a cell from another cell, or manipulate the DNA in a cell, or clone a cell, or kill a cell, but we can not make a cell from something inanimate. We can not imbue it with the awareness that it needs to make itself continue -- consciousness.

Can I assume that you have no argument with the rest of what I wrote in the above two quoted paragraphs and find it generally true?

Thank you for your consideration.

Gee

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 5:10 PM, koti said:

It is a difficult task to lead a discussion if you chose to comprehend reproduction as cell reproduction and not procreaction when the context is extremely clearly pointing to the latter. 

Koti;

If you think that is difficult, you should try to lead a discussion in the Religion forum on the topic "What is a 'God'", relate that topic to consciousness and then end up talking about toasters. You might try to convince someone that toasters have some relationship with consciousness, but I don't see how you can relate toasters to "God" or Religion.

Also remember that we were discussing bacteria. For single-cell bacteria, cell reproduction is procreation.

Gee

[CharonY]

40 minutes ago, Gees said:

f we had something like cancer, could the cancer growth continue after we are dead and our bodies stopped producing? Weird thought.

Many cell cultures that can be cultivated indefinitely have been obtained from cancerous tissues. HeLa, one of the most famous cell lines that are currently still being cultivated have been isolated from Henrietta Lacks, who died 1951. 

I also disagree that a cell has anything that we would associate with consciousness in any common usage of the word. Our inability to create a fully synthetic cell is more due to the complexity of the system rather than the strangely defined quality that you want to impart to them. And again, as others have mentioned your definition of the term goes more into the metaphysical rather than what one would normally use it (which generally is associated with a nervous system of a minimum complexity). 

[Gees]

Ten oz;

Apparently I don't have three down votes, so I can respond; although, I am rethinking my position on that matter.

You asked some difficult questions. I can give you simple answers, but unless you understand how I arrived at my conclusions, you will have no reason to believe my answers. The problem is that explaining it will be lengthy, and that seems to tick people off. So what do you want? Simple answers or elaboration?

 

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 12:44 PM, Ten oz said:

My perception is that those who view spirituality as a real thing supernaturally or consciously generally always have their own floating definition of what it is. 

I disagree. I know many religious people who believe they they have a soul/spirit which can and one day will exist entirely separate from their biology bodies. I also know many people who claim to have seen souls/spirits of dead people. Additionally many religious people believe they will receive new bodies after death. Some believe their new bodies will be created by god and others believe they will be reincarnated, re-born, into new living bodies. 

If by "We" you mean you and I than I agree. If by "We" you mean all humans I disagree. Humans overall have a lot of different crazy ideas.

Can you elaborate on what you mean? 

Gee