what is a god

[Scott of the Antares]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Sure, it's misleading in two ways:

1. Bacteria are alive but their food doesn't have to be. 

Thanks! I see what you mean; some bacteria need nutrients classed as food but which is not derived from another living source. That makes sense, thanks again

[dimreepr]

Not to mention, it's essentially gibberish; food for thought. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Sure, it's misleading in two ways:

1. Bacteria are alive but their food doesn't have to be. 

2. A virus is not alive but it can only consume the living. 

It is also misleading in that it implies that living things eat other living things for some sort of "life force" rather than just for energy and the raw materials for growth. Any living thing could survive just as well on completely synthetic food derived from non-living material.

And plants don't eat other life. (Well, a few do. But most don't.)

[Bender]

9 hours ago, Gees said:

Agreed. And what is food? Water and other life. Life feeds on life.

Gee

I know the competition is tough, but this may be your poorest argument so far.

I can make my toaster run on eg solar power. If I make it run on organic oil, does it become conscious?

14 hours ago, Gees said:

Just as Biology studies life forms, Science is the Discipline that studies all matter, forces, and causal reality. But Science does not study spirituality. Religion is the Discipline that studies spirituality. These are facts.

So Biology is not science?

Adding "these are facts", is a clear warning for nonsense. I read a piece by Harun Yahya that was full of such statements.

14 hours ago, Gees said:

The plug that was put into the back of a person's head could be called consciousness. Or maybe it was the pill -- the red one or the blue one.

Your definitions of consciousness are getting weirder and weirder. Now our consciousness is an inanimate object that's not even part of our body?

13 hours ago, Gees said:

Why don't you go to the Philosophy forum, type in the title, Monism v Dualism, and write a thread that questions WTF consciousness actually is?

I thought it would have been clear by now that I'm monist/materialist/reductionist however you want to call it.

13 hours ago, Gees said:

Should we notify Neurology, Psychiatry, and Psychology that the unconscious is a myth?

No need to put words in my mouth. I refuse to accept that someone as brilliant as you cannot deduce what I actually meant from the context.

[Gees]

Eise;

We meet again.

 

8 hours ago, Eise said:

That we know that Feynman really understands what he is talking about, because he was in the discursive network of physicists that were working on similar theories, that these theories were confirmed by experiments etc etc. 

So you think that Feynman knew what he was talking about? Then why did he have such contempt for Philosophy? After I realized how brilliant he was,, I wondered about that until I read an article that explained that Feynman took a Philosophy class while at University and walked away thinking that it was the biggest bunch of nonsense that he had ever heard.

 

Quote

 

From you we only know that you say you are a philosopher.

 

Likewise -- we are all anonymous here. It is clear that you know a great deal about Science, but I have not seen evidence that you understand Philosophy. In my thread about truth, right, and wrong, I made a referral to your post in the thread that was a split from Sam Harris's thread. Your post in that thread had a down vote on it, which I did not give you, but I reversed because I do not believe in the down vote system. But to be perfectly honest, you earned that down vote because you side-stepped or did not answer any philosophical question that I asked you. You wanted to talk about Science, which is something that you know. I normally do not try to expose your ignorance of Philosophy because many here seem to think you a philosopher, but you are pushing me.

 

Quote

But philosophy is, as science, not just a collection of knowledge, of justified beliefs, but it is also a way of thinking that has to be learned and trained. Without teachers and colleagues to confront your way of thinking and your ideas you will have a very high barrier to really become a philosopher. Therefore I take your claim that you are a philosopher with a huge crystal of salt.

Nonsense. If what you stated above were true, then how did the first philosophers become philosophers? 

Also consider that universities all over the country are removing Philosophy from their curriculum because they are starting to realize that what they are teaching is not working. Most are teaching a history of Philosophy going over the great philosophers' works and what has already been accomplished, along with a hefty dose of how to argue. Some don't even require a Logic or Critical Thinking class in order to get a degree. I tried a Philosophy class once and walked away thinking that it was the biggest bunch on nonsense that I had ever heard. The whole class was based on the Monism v Dualism debate, which I had already realized is nonsense, as it is not about consciousness; it is about power.

 

Quote

 

The topics you are engaged in are definitely philosophical topics. But philosophy is not just the contents, as science is not just its content, but also a praxis of critical thinking. But what I see when I read your posts is a lot of ideological thinking. You pick the ideas from philosophical (and non-philosophical!) discourse on basis of what you like, not based on ideas that can withstand rational scrutiny.

 

Then you are wrong. In order to have ideological thinking, one has to have an ideal. In the study of consciousness, many believe that it is "God", or the brain, or the planet, or the Universe, or even illusion -- that is ideological thinking. Although I have considered each of these ideas, I am not ready to state that any are the answer because we still do not know WTF consciousness actually is or how it works. I follow whatever evidence that I can find, and I don't care if it is in a place that is popular or accepted, I just follow the evidence.

 

Quote

 

I am also irritated by your snootiness, as is iNow, that you know better than everyone here what consciousness is, because you have studied it, and therefore are a philosopher. 

 

No. If studying consciousness made one a philosopher, then the universities would be successful in their endeavors. It doesn't work that way.

If you and iNow want me to be less snooty, then you might want to consider that this thread is called, "what is a god", not "What do we think of Gees". Apparently I am  more interesting to discuss than "God", but it is not fair to the OP or the other members, who may want to discuss the topic. Maybe we could start a new topic in the Lounge and the Moderators could split off all the What About Gees posts. But that would be a lot of work for the Moderators just because a few members can not control themselves.

 

Quote

I don't know what the philosophical definition is. It surely is not the same as 'life', as you seem to propose. Consciousness is not simply reacting at stimuli. A thermostat is also reacting at stimuli, but surely it is not conscious. So I can understand Bender when he brings in the example of a toaster, even if it might not be the best counter example.

Well you can right click your mouse and get a simplified definition of the word, consciousness, which is pretty accurate. If you want more, you can go to the SEP (the free on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and read pages and pages of definition, or you can go with my simplified definition that consciousness is simply communication. I should probably elaborate before someone compares my answer to a radio. How that simple communication takes place and why it takes place and where it takes place and the parameters of consciousness are some of the questions that are so far unanswerable.

I am aware of the theories of consciousness that state it is the Universe and of Panpsychism and of the Gaia hypothesis, so an argument can always be made that something is conscious. For this reason I focus the discussion that I am having about consciousness, because to do otherwise is insane and accomplishes nothing. In the post that Bender originally answered, I SPECIFICALLY stated that I was reserving these observations/ideas of consciousness to life forms -- that was the focus. Now, if Bender can not read, what is Bender doing in a forum? If Bender does not know what life forms are, then Bender should go to Biology to learn. If Bender simply does not care about what I stated and just wants to argue about consciousness, then what is Bender doing in this thread about "God", or are we supposed to believe that inanimate things worship a god? So no, I do not understand Bender's nonsense and suspect that he intended to take the subject off topic and to explain his ideas of AI and consciousness.

 

Quote

It is obvious you did not study everything. Otherwise you would have found dozens of arguments against your views. That does not mean that all these arguments are correct. But a good philosopher is aware of them, and in developing his/hers own ideas, discusses them, and argues why they are correct or not. Normally, studying philosophy at a university helps, because you will be confronted by counter arguments, or pointed at authors that have good arguments pro or contra the ideas you would like to present.

No one can study everything. That is a silly observation. There are dozens of arguments against every view, which is why there is no comprehensive theory of consciousness. As I stated before universities teach wanna be philosophers how to argue, and sometimes teach them how to think. You seem to think that my thoughts were born the day before I joined this forum and I have not discussed them before. (chuckle) If you have a specific argument against one of my views, please do start a thread in the General Philosophy section stating your argument and be prepared to have evidence/logic supporting your argument.

 

Quote

And I thought psychology is the discipline that studies emotion. And who is 'we'?

Psychology is a branch of the Discipline of Science. In this case the "we" is Religion.

 

Quote

 

I have very much something against equating consciousness with life and the capability 'to continue'. 

 

And what might that "something" be? Is it a secret? Or are you going to tell me?

 

Quote

I've studied this many years, so I cannot suppose you understand this immediately, because I am an academic trained philosopher, and you are not.  

What I understand is that you routinely use the same words and don't seem to understand the idea in different words; like when you say "thinking about thinking" and I say "study of knowledge", you can not see the similarity. This makes me wonder if you understand the concept or if you are just parroting what you have been taught.

 

Quote

Except that you equate consciousness with life again, your entropy remark is beside the point. It is true that life opposes entropy, but it does so by using energy and increasing the entropy in the rest of the universe. The decrease in entropy is only local. Life is per definition not a closed system, and the law of entropy is only valid for closed systems.

This is interesting. Why is life not a closed system? Would an ecosystem be a closed system? What is a closed system? I know almost nothing about Science.

 

Quote

Dr. Ian Stevenson? Really?

Yes. If you read his Wiki page ten years ago, it was very interesting. Five years ago it was less so. Now they call him a crack-pot. Disappointing, but not really surprising as his ideas were not popular with Science and seriously disagreed with Christianity. Not long after he died, his ideas and worth started to lose momentum. They may even have taken down the site at the University because of peer pressure, but the evidence he gathered is still out there somewhere, so I will just have to find it. I know some was published.

 

Quote

That is misuse of the word 'instinct' (bold by me): 

Everything is a misuse of the word "instinct". (chuckle) I worked a long thread in another Science forum years ago where we got seriously into the word, instinct, and a bigger mess I have never seen except possibly in the word, consciousness. I worked with a neurologist, an animal behaviorist, an archeologist, and a few other professionals and came away with the conclusion that it would take a brain like Einstein's that had been trained in consciousness, psychology, chemistry, animal behavior, and probably more, to straighten out that mess. This is the reason why I always refer to "survival instincts" as that seems to be the only area of "instincts" that has any validity. The rest of it is all a mishmash of nonsense.

 

Quote

Possibly, yes. But to experience feelings and emotions, it needs a complex information processing, a complexity so far we know, is only realised in nature by complex nervous systems. Bacteria do not have such systems.

This is not true. All life is sentient -- that means it feels. Now we can satisfy our emotional needs by pretending it is otherwise and stating that all life "senses" or "perceives" or whatever, but this means that it feels. We can go the other way and say that some bacteria "knows" what it wants to absorb and what it wants to avoid, but that is going a bit too far because how could it possibly know anything without eyes, smell, ears, a brain, etc.?

It senses and reacts without any decision as to what it should do, so it feels. This is the way that all survival instincts work, automatically without the necessity to think about it. 

A complex nervous system and brain are required to know that you are feeling or experiencing emotion. This is what philosophers used to call being aware that you are aware. A flower will turn to the sun, but does it know that this is the sun? Does it know that it needs the sun to survive? No. It just turns to the sun because it feels good and it wants that feeling.

 

Quote

Well, I would say some religions have ideas about life after death. But religions are not science, so that's it. Having ideas. No empirically proven explanations of something that only exists in our ideas. 

You mean like consciousness? Where everything only exists in our ideas? (chuckle) If you are going to push straight materialism, doesn't that mean that I get to go to the illusion theories?

 

Quote

As said, religion is not science, and therefore has nothing to say about these topics, except nice ideas. And that spirituality is not studied in science is not true. The earliest work I read (there might be older one) to put the scientific research on spirituality on a scientific track was Exploring Mysticism. A Methodological Essay (1975) by Frits Staal.

No Religion is not Science, on the other hand Science is not Religion. 

We have been through this before. Did you not understand or do you not believe me?

A thousand years ago Religion thought it was the beginning and end of knowledge. Philosophy was acceptable if it supported Religion. Science was irrelevant because it studied things that were of no consequence, or it was dangerous. The result was the Dark Ages.

Now Science is beginning to think it is the beginning and end of knowledge. Philosophy is acceptable if it supports Science. Religion is irrelevant because it studies things that are of no consequence, or it is dangerous. The result is the destruction of families, children raising themselves and shooting up schools, suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc., or a breakdown in the social structure. To try to resolve this problem, we voted in Trump because everyone needs to feel safe and has a "daddy's lap" complex where we think his strength will make us safe.

If you can not understand that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings, and that these attributes need to be balanced -- or they will balance themselves -- then how can you call yourself a philosopher?

 

Quote

'Evidence'? Really? I think you should say support. Nothing more.

What do you think evidence is? It is support. It is not proof. It is not a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is just support that leads a person in a direction that can at some point possibly end in a hypothesis or theory. The problem with most of the theories of consciousness is that people did not gather enough evidence before deciding on their theories. I refuse to do that.

Gee

PS dimreepr: If you are still reading, you know this post is too long. It is not Eise's fault for writing a long post. It is, of course, my fault.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Gees said:

If you and iNow want me to be less snooty, then

It’s pretty striking the power of my words. I’ve posted maybe once or twice to this otherwise pretty long thread and yet I remain your primary foil and somehow have become a representative lightening rod for all things contrary. I’m flattered. 

[Strange]

12 hours ago, Gees said:

So you think that Feynman knew what he was talking about? Then why did he have such contempt for Philosophy?

He was a physicist. He knew what he was talking about in physics. 

(Many scientists have a poor opinions of philosophy. As do many other people. Perhaps because they haven't studied it. Or perhaps because of people like you who claim to be "philosophers".)

12 hours ago, Gees said:

It is clear that you know a great deal about Science, but I have not seen evidence that you understand Philosophy.

He very obviously understands far more than you. And has obviously studied it in depth.

[Bender]

16 hours ago, Gees said:

In the post that Bender originally answered, I SPECIFICALLY stated that I was reserving these observations/ideas of consciousness to life forms -- that was the focus. Now, if Bender can not read, what is Bender doing in a forum? If Bender does not know what life forms are, then Bender should go to Biology to learn. If Bender simply does not care about what I stated and just wants to argue about consciousness, then what is Bender doing in this thread about "God", or are we supposed to believe that inanimate things worship a god? So no, I do not understand Bender's nonsense and suspect that he intended to take the subject off topic and to explain his ideas of AI and consciousness.

You suspected wrong. All I did was remove the baseless claim that life is a requirement, and draw logical conclusions based on the various premises you present.

Eg: here your comment about inanimate things believing in God, which is obviously absurd, implies that you think a blade of grass beliefs in God, which is equally absurd.

16 hours ago, Gees said:

Now Science is beginning to think it is the beginning and end of knowledge. Philosophy is acceptable if it supports Science. Religion is irrelevant because it studies things that are of no consequence, or it is dangerous. The result is the destruction of families, children raising themselves and shooting up schools, suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, etc., or a breakdown in the social structure. To try to resolve this problem, we voted in Trump because everyone needs to feel safe and has a "daddy's lap" complex where we think his strength will make us safe.

Yes, because all these perverted sientists and atheists voted for Trump... (you may need to recheck your statistics on that one)

It may disappoint you that I, as a materialist, have never used drugs, rarely drink alcohol, have never fired a gun, and have a very loving and traditional family.

16 hours ago, Gees said:

What do you think evidence is? It is support. It is not proof. It is not a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is just support that leads a person in a direction that can at some point possibly end in a hypothesis or theory. The problem with most of the theories of consciousness is that people did not gather enough evidence before deciding on their theories. I refuse to do that.

In the absence of evidence, why not go with the null hypothesis?

[koti]

1 hour ago, Bender said:

...never used drugs, rarely drink alcohol, have never fired a gun, and have a very loving and traditional family.

Phew. If not for that „rarely” I’d think you’re one of those geeks on a science forum on the internet  

[Gees]

iNow;

 

19 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s pretty striking the power of my words. I’ve posted maybe once or twice to this otherwise pretty long thread and yet I remain your primary foil and somehow have become a representative lightening rod for all things contrary. I’m flattered. 

Well, I am happy that you are flattered, but in all honesty I must explain that it was Eise, who brought up your name. I was just responding.

Actually you have made seven posts in this thread.

The first post was on topic.

One post was about a toaster, which is a stretch of the imagination to think that toasters have anything to do with "God".

One post was to whine about a down vote you received.

Four posts were about me, so I am the one who is flattered.

Although I am certain that you are enamored of the "power" of your words, I find that research and evidence have some worth. Being able to read also helps.

Gee

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Gees said:

One post was about a toaster, which is a stretch of the imagination to think that toasters have anything to do with "God".

I would have thought a "philosopher" would be able to manage a more convincing straw man.

[Gees]

Strange;

 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

He was a physicist. He knew what he was talking about in physics. 

He was also a brilliant man. Are you trying to imply that he was an idiot in other fields and could not recognize nonsense? I can't believe I have to defend him.

 

Quote

(Many scientists have a poor opinions of philosophy. As do many other people. Perhaps because they haven't studied it. Or perhaps because of people like you who claim to be "philosophers".)

Or perhaps it is because academic Philosophy has failed miserably. One of our greatest American philosophers was Benjamin Franklin, and that boy never even made through high school. I am not even sure if he got past sixth grade. His teacher did not think much of him -- he educated himself. Teachers did not like Edison either and called him a dreamer. So academic education can help, but it is not the end-all answer to education.

 

Quote

He very obviously understands far more than you. And has obviously studied it in depth.

Well it may be obvious to you, a non-philosopher, but it is not obvious to me. Why don't we wait and see if he can make any arguments against my points without sidestepping them or ignoring them or trying to turn them to Science. He should know how to make an argument as academic Philosophy teaches a lot about arguing.

 

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 10:41 AM, Strange said:

It is also misleading in that it implies that living things eat other living things for some sort of "life force" rather than just for energy and the raw materials for growth. Any living thing could survive just as well on completely synthetic food derived from non-living material.

There is a lot that is misleading and assumed in this thread. You know, as well as I, that the idea that life eats life is only one indicator of life; it is not the full definition of life. Just like the idea that DNA causes life. Viruses consume life and have DNA, but they are not considered life. This is not such a simple subject.

A human can survive on completely synthetic food? For how long? Please provide evidence of this.

 

Quote

And plants don't eat other life. (Well, a few do. But most don't.)

If the Gaia hypothesis is correct or even partly correct, then your argument is not valid. If the theories that state the Universe is alive are correct, then your argument is not valid. This is not such a simple little subject as some of you propose.

Gee

[Bender]

10 minutes ago, Gees said:

If the Gaia hypothesis is correct or even partly correct, then your argument is not valid. If the theories that state the Universe is alive are correct, then your argument is not valid. This is not such a simple little subject as some of you propose.

You have to make up your mind. Either toasters are dead and plants do not consume other life or you argue that plants somehow do eat life, but then you also have to accept that toasters are alive. You cannot swing both ways whenever it suits your fantasies.

[Gees]

55 minutes ago, Strange said:

I would have thought a "philosopher" would be able to manage a more convincing straw man.

Straw man? Are you sure? I am wondering if you think that toasters are related to "God", or if you missed the point entirely and do not realize that only his first post was on topic.

iNow wields a lot of power in this forum, so if he wants to take a thread off topic, he can and no one will check him. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely -- only integrity can stop this corruption.

Gee

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, Gees said:

One of our greatest American philosophers was Benjamin Franklin, and that boy never even made through high school. I am not even sure if he got past sixth grade.

Kindly summarize Benjamin Franklin's contribution to the discipline of Philosophy.

Also note that strangely, pretty much everyone reading your and Eise's post side by side, comes to the conclusion that Eise more likely knows more about philosophy. Reasons include differences in the clarity of writing (especially outlining the subject), stronger focus on the argument itself rather than building straw men or discussion peripheral aspects with no obvious connections to the subject at hand (including the need to remind everyone that one is a philosopher). Dismissal of a whole body of knowledge without any indication of having studied them is another serious blow to ones' credentials.

Take this for example:

11 minutes ago, Gees said:

Just like the idea that DNA causes life.

Who has ever claimed that? What is the relevance (other than just being plain wrong?). Just like the other bio-inspired arguments in this thread they just exemplify a lack of understanding of biological systems. Even worse, if one at the same time claims expertise and the authority to define terms on that subject (i.e. defining what "philosophical" viewpoint on consciousness is, which, as far as I can tell, is pulled straight from nowhere).

However, from the post it appears that your definition of "philosophy" is actually expounding on subjects one has little knoweldge about. In that case I declare myself a philosopher with special non-knowledge in astrophysics.

And before the bloody toaster is brought up, I believe Bender was just trying to make the point that being reactive to stimuli is not a sufficient criterion for consciousness (though we could have left it at cells, too, same applies there).

 

 

[koti]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I would have thought a "philosopher" would be able to manage a more convincing straw man.

You ask and you shall receive:

1 hour ago, Gees said:

He was also a brilliant man. Are you trying to imply that he was an idiot in other fields and could not recognize nonsense? I can't believe I have to defend him.

[Eise]

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

So you think that Feynman knew what he was talking about?

Yes, because he talked about physics in his 'what is magnetism'-video. Implicitly he claims to be an authority on physics, and also of the process of what understanding physics means (which means he is philosophising...). Given his achievements, I grant him this authority. But given your posts, I cannot grant you authority on philosophy.   

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

Then why did he have such contempt for Philosophy? After I realized how brilliant he was,, I wondered about that until I read an article that explained that Feynman took a Philosophy class while at University and walked away thinking that it was the biggest bunch of nonsense that he had ever heard.

As you did, obviously:

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

I tried a Philosophy class once and walked away thinking that it was the biggest bunch on nonsense that I had ever heard.

Maybe it was nonsense, maybe it wasn't, I cannot know. An academic study, pity enough, is not a quality guarantee. But that you share this experience with Feynman does not make you an expert philosopher. So why did you come with the example of Feynman anyway?

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

Likewise -- we are all anonymous here. It is clear that you know a great deal about Science, but I have not seen evidence that you understand Philosophy.

Must I send you a copy of my certificate, so that you believe me?

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

Most are teaching a history of Philosophy going over the great philosophers' works and what has already been accomplished

I cannot speak for other philosophy departments. History of philosophy was only a small part of my curriculum. Main topics where philosophy of science, philosophy of society, philosophical anthropology (mind body problem, free will and such topics), and logic.

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

No one can study everything. That is a silly observation.

For the record: it was your own observation, which I repeated, and showed the problem when you philosophise on your own, without propper tutelage.

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

This is interesting. Why is life not a closed system? Would an ecosystem be a closed system? What is a closed system? I know almost nothing about Science.

Wow! You do not know the ins and out of the concept of entropy, but you make an argument based on that consciousness ignores, or even reverses entropy? And I think, that as a philosopher, you should know about science. Therefore (at least in my days), to avoid that, one, as a philosopher is just freewheeling in some air castle, I was supposed to take at least a one year equivalent of some scientific discipline (which was physics and astronomy for me, which of course included also a hell of a lot of mathematics).

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

Then you are wrong. In order to have ideological thinking, one has to have an ideal.

That is only one form of ideological thinking. For me, ideological thinking is a way of thinking that sticks to ideas that are not rationally or empirically tenable.

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

If you and iNow want me to be less snooty, then you might want to consider that this thread is called, "what is a god", not "What do we think of Gees".

If you would just argue for your viewpoints, this would not be necessary. But if you argue that you are a philosopher, and that other people should first get to your level of understanding, then you can count on it that you get such reactions. The whole 'discussion about Gees' is your own fault because you say you are philosopher, and therefore you understand things better than others here do.

What I see however is that you disqualify any opinion that does not fit to your ideas. You measure 'philosophical quality' by evaluating how well it fits your ideas.   

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

But that would be a lot of work for the Moderators just because a few members can not control themselves.

Outch!

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

Nonsense. If what you stated above were true, then how did the first philosophers become philosophers? 

Remembers me of the problem of the 'first mammal'. (Which is a variation of the 'paradox of the heap', i.e. all kinds of categories that by nature only have vague borders)

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

Yes. If you read his Wiki page ten years ago, it was very interesting. Five years ago it was less so. Now they call him a crack-pot.

Yes, the quality of Wikipedia improved over time. 

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

This is not true. All life is sentient -- that means it feels. Now we can satisfy our emotional needs by pretending it is otherwise and stating that all life "senses" or "perceives" or whatever, but this means that it feels.

I have no idea if a plant or bacterium feels. But if you say so: why would your idea that such lower life forms have consciousness not be given because it fits your emotional needs? 

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

If you are going to push straight materialism, doesn't that mean that I get to go to the illusion theories?

No. At least not in the way that some hard materialists think consciousness is an illusion. What is an illusion however, is that consciousness somehow exists in itself. It is a function of complex material systems. And the only systems we know of at present that are conscious are animals with complex brains.

So this one is clear an ideological statement:

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

It just turns to the sun because it feels good and it wants that feeling.

A flower 'wants to turn to the light'? How do you know? Did you talk with the flower? If you conclude that from its behaviour, then some variation of 'Bender's Toaster' comes into play again. If a robot turns to the light, how do you know that it also does not because it wants to? Because you defined consciousness as life? Any arguments to defend this definition?

(BTW, if you knew a little about the history of philosophy, you would know that you have a predecessor for this idea: Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation. Maybe you would like it.

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

If you can not understand that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings, and that these attributes need to be balanced -- or they will balance themselves -- then how can you call yourself a philosopher?

See? This the way you dismiss other's view points and other philosophers. If they do not agree with you, then they cannot be philosophers.

Of course I agree that humans are 'mental beings' (I would never say it like this, I would prefer something like 'humans have minds'.) But I would immediately add that this mind is a function of the brain. I don't know what you mean with 'spiritual' here. For me 'spiritual' refers to a mental attitude, not to some ontological separate category.

On 5/15/2018 at 2:35 AM, Gees said:

What do you think evidence is? It is support. It is not proof. It is not a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is just support that leads a person in a direction that can at some point possibly end in a hypothesis or theory. The problem with most of the theories of consciousness is that people did not gather enough evidence before deciding on their theories. I refuse to do that.

On the high horse again... 

Arguments for a viewpoint need two attributes to be supportive for the viewpoint: they must be relevant, and (probably) true.

In this case, religious arguments are relevant (they say things about the viewpoint at hand); the problem is they are (probably) not true, because they are not based on empirical research or clear rational analysis. They are just based on tradition.

12 hours ago, Gees said:

Well, I am happy that you are flattered, but in all honesty I must explain that it was Eise, who brought up your name. I was just responding.

Yep, for the record, I did. 

11 hours ago, Gees said:

Or perhaps it is because academic Philosophy has failed miserably.

Failed in what? I see several reasons that many scientists have a poor opinion about philosophy:

• It is not science, it is missing the touchstones of experiment and observation
• Some philosophers try to meddling into science
• Philosophers say things about science they have no idea of (entropy?)

Philosophy that does not take science into account is worthless. (Just to add: science that does not take philosophy into account might be dangerous. But that is another topic.)

11 hours ago, Gees said:

If the Gaia hypothesis is correct or even partly correct, then your argument is not valid. If the theories that state the Universe is alive are correct, then your argument is not valid. This is not such a simple little subject as some of you propose.

So first you say that all life is conscious, and now you take the idea that the universe is alive serious?

11 hours ago, Gees said:

Just like the idea that DNA causes life.

As CharonY already noticed, nobody in his right mind defends such a thing. So why mention it at all? 

11 hours ago, Gees said:

This is not such a simple subject.

I would say it is no subject at all, because nobody defends the above. Probably you are referring to the question if viruses can be called 'alive', but that is another question.

- - - - - 

For the record: non of the negative points you got is mine. 

I would suggest you, that if you are here only to belittle us, to present us your great philosophy, then start a blog. If you are interested in discussing your ideas, then present them in smaller chunks (more fitting to a forum), but get from the high horse.

Just to add: I sometimes also refer to the fact that I have studied philosophy: but I only do this if people present some weird ideas about philosophy (positive or negative) or claim some ideas as 'true philosophy'. I never do this in discussions on specific topics (or at least I hope I never did...). Arguments should be evaluated independent of the background of who presents them.

11 hours ago, Gees said:

iNow wields a lot of power in this forum, so if he wants to take a thread off topic, he can and no one will check him. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely -- only integrity can stop this corruption.

Hmmm... I am not sure, but I smell a bit of a conspiracy mentality in your postings, with this remark as highlight. But there others (philosophy was only allowed when it supported religion; nowadays only when it supports science. Are you suggesting your 'philosophy' is suppressed in Academia?)

iNow is just a very active member. Why would somebody 'check him'? I had some hot discussions with him, also blamed him for bad reading. But I really see no reason to 'check him'.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Eise

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Eise said:

iNow is just a very active member. Why would somebody 'check him'? I had some hot discussions with him, also blamed him for bad reading. But I really see no reason to 'check him'

Speaking of for the record... you did a far better job of supporting your positions than me, you introduced extremely valid criticisms of my posts and new concepts I'd not previously considered, and highlighted some of my blindspots. I haven't entirely changed my stance on the subject we discussed, but I respect you for it and greatly appreciate the exchanges we've shared. I like that you've in some small way helped to make me better and that you illuminated topics that were previously for me lit only dimly, if at all.

Gees - Any "power" I wield in this forum comes from consistently high quality posts, an ability to challenge sensitive topics in a forceful way, while also remaining respectful of others. I speak out forcefully for what is right, and most of my reputation comes from battles on hot topics like gay marriage, climate change, and similar culturally important circumstances.

Now, admittedly there are countless times I've failed badly, have not even begun to closely live up to the ideals highlighted above, and there were even many years when I was probably far more brutal and eviscerating with my posts than respectful, but I've improved over time and have a history of defending ideas and people. I assure you, though, I can be and have been multiple times been censored, warned, and even banned just like any other member.

 

What is god? An ill-defined 3-letter word that matches remarkably each of our own individual self-images. It's a broadly ambiguous placeholder that we often use until better and more accurate descriptions of nature are realized.

[Eise]

16 hours ago, iNow said:

Speaking of for the record... you did a far better job of supporting your positions than me, you introduced extremely valid criticisms of my posts and new concepts I'd not previously considered, and highlighted some of my blindspots. I haven't entirely changed my stance on the subject we discussed, but I respect you for it and greatly appreciate the exchanges we've shared. I like that you've in some small way helped to make me better and that you illuminated topics that were previously for me lit only dimly, if at all.

Well, thank you very much. Nice to know that 'even you' get something from my postings. (Now that 'even you' was mean. But I hope you see the truth through the irony. Or is it the irony in the truth?). Anyway, what you describe is the best a philosopher can hope for, even if it is as 'small scale' as an internet forum.

[YaDinghus]

On 4/16/2018 at 5:13 PM, sci-man said:

6. how would a 'god' exist/ be made?

 

Through Apotheosis - making yourself a god. It's really easy. Do a lot of things people couldn't imagine a human doing, and your legend will spread. Depending on what you pulled off, you will be handled as a protector (e.g Thor), punisher (e.g. Anansi) or trickster (e.g. Sheogorath). There are more god roles than those three, but I would consider those three the main templates. 

 

On 4/16/2018 at 5:13 PM, sci-man said:

1. what is a 'god

According to my argument above, it's a person blown out of proportion by their legend that is propagated by society.

On 4/16/2018 at 5:13 PM, sci-man said:

4. how do you know the bible or some other religious book wasn't just some storybook for kids to behave way back when

Legends that have been displaced by more prominent legends become fairy tales. They still hold this educational value.

On 4/16/2018 at 5:13 PM, sci-man said:

5. when you now look at the evidence is the possibility of a 'god' real or not?

This is not an evidence-based issue. 

 

On 4/16/2018 at 5:13 PM, sci-man said:

3. what proof is there of a 'god'

The Legend is 'proof' that someone did something unbelievably awesome in times untold.

 

Everyone please get a salt shaker, a grain may not be enough here

[Baron d'Holbach]

Simple answers: 

1. what is a 'god'

Answer: A imagination of a human being creative thought

2. how could a 'god' be

Answer: By the actions of a man to convince himself and dupe others in the creation of a physical entity.  

3. what proof is there of a 'god'

Answer: The domination of a ruler A.K.A Man to rule and judge over other human beings gives a sense of a God. 

4. how do you know the bible or some other religious book wasn't just some storybook for kids to behave way back when.

It wasnt. The bible is just a history book for a generation to keep on going. A record book. Stolen stories from others 

5. when you now look at the evidence is the possibility of a 'god' real or not?

Yes. By using current science and money Human being can live forever like a eternal God. But still being weak as a machine and an organism 

6. how would a 'god' exist/ be made?

It only exist in the mind of an adult man/woman . All babies are born atheist 

[Ant Sinclair]

What if GOD is the Creation not the Creator,   what if GOD is the Geometrical Circular Design or Geometrical Ring Design?

If GOD is the Creation then everything in our Multiverse would be a part of GOD, this would support that GOD is in everything(inside our reality) including us.

 

Many verses in the Bible that seem illogical on the surface are in fact logical when certain facts are known.

 

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

What if GOD is the Creation not the Creator,   what if GOD is the Geometrical Circular Design or Geometrical Ring Design?

If GOD is the Creation then everything in our Multiverse would be a part of GOD, this would support that GOD is in everything(inside our reality) including us.

1

Whilst the Baron has oversimplified the relationship between man and god, you have just moved the goalposts; making you both wrong.

28 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Many verses in the Bible that seem illogical on the surface are in fact logical when certain facts are known.

That is almost certainly true, but the problem with this argument is, God didn't write the bible.

[DrP]

32 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

What if GOD is the Creation not the Creator,   

 

That is what most of us believe here - that god is a creation of human thinking. (not what you meant though - I know)

32 minutes ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Many verses in the Bible that seem illogical on the surface are in fact logical when certain facts are known.

 

Like talking Donkeys, creation in 7 days, hatred of gays, miracles that didn't happen and plain straight contradictions from one part to another? -  how many times have you actually read it through? What facts are we missing that make all this BS seem logical? 

Edited May 31, 2018 by DrP

[Ant Sinclair]

Just now, DrP said:

Like talking Donkeys, creation in 7 days, hatred of gays, miracles that didn't happen and plain straight contradictions from one part to another? -  how many times have you actually read it through? What facts are we missing that make all this BS seem logical? 

The Six Days of Creation are totally logical DrP and also provide Scientific knowledge for those that can see.

Just now, dimreepr said:

Whilst the Baron has oversimplified the relationship between man and god, you have just moved the goalposts; making you both wrong.

You're talking like I and the Baron are some sort of Tag Team,  address my post by all means but don't confuse it with what the Baron is saying. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Ant Sinclair
Autotext