Why can`t one sense god?

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

But the subjects within my premonitions are real people proven to exist in the first place.   

I knew several otherwise sane people who sensed/felt God/Jesus/angel/spirit/etc.

 

4 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I think it would be better to define what do we mean by "sense" in the first place.

Yes, it would, but I doubt such an objective definition exists. As some old saying goes, "we don't only know what we see, but we see what we know."

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But this is an illusion, I "sense" many things myself, sometimes in fear of my life if I'm half asleep and think there is a monster in my bedroom.

If we get all solipsist, then everything could be an illusion.

The subject of his experiment (a PhD student) is both awake and sceptical and she past a previous test of suggestion, that gave everyone else the illusion of a sense of being watched, so not a frightened little boy that's struggling to stay awake.  

She was overwhelmed by a sense of awe, that was very real for her, he explained how he did it and it wasn't tapping into a primal fear.

What I think he's saying is that this sense of awe/god/whatever (you want to call it) is hardwired into the system, which obviously has evolved to our advantage.

My point is, if it's hardwired then it must be a sense, of some sort.

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by dimreepr

[TheVat]

There is a sensed presence effect that seems to be generated in the temporal lobe.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sensed-presence-effect/

 

[Genady]

28 minutes ago, TheVat said:

There is a sensed presence effect that seems to be generated in the temporal lobe.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sensed-presence-effect/

 

Sounds like a very mild, temporary schizophrenia.

[TheVat]

27 minutes ago, Genady said:

Sounds like a very mild, temporary schizophrenia.

Yes, similar.  And can be induced with trans-cranial magnetic stimulation.  Or even much weaker magnetic fields, as with the "god helmet"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by TheVat
adjusting gauss for god

[Intoscience]

17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If we get all solipsist, then everything could be an illusion.

The subject of his experiment (a PhD student) is both awake and sceptical and she past a previous test of suggestion, that gave everyone else the illusion of a sense of being watched, so not a frightened little boy that's struggling to stay awake.  

She was overwhelmed by a sense of awe, that was very real for her, he explained how he did it and it wasn't tapping into a primal fear.

What I think he's saying is that this sense of awe/god/whatever (you want to call it) is hardwired into the system, which obviously has evolved to our advantage.

My point is, if it's hardwired then it must be a sense, of some sort.

 

Yeah maybe,

I see your point. 

[mistermack]

Much of these types of discussions revolves around the meaning of words. 

In this instance "sense" is the guilty party. It depends how you define it, and there are a great many ways to choose from. So you end up having a discussion, where one person defines sense one way, while another difines it differently. Which doesn't make much sense. At least, it doesn't really get you anywhere. 

Actually, "god" is also a guilty party. Also lacking a universal definition.

I wonder if AI will have that problem, in the future? Surely machines will be able to unite on definitions, so a lot of the pretty pointless arguments that we humans have will simply not happen between units of AI.

[Genady]

33 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Surely machines will be able to unite on definitions, so a lot of the pretty pointless arguments that we humans have will simply not happen between units of AI.

This is OT, but I don't think so. AI is trained to mimic people. The machines will mimic the pretty pointless arguments effectively, too.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

This is OT, but I don't think so. AI is trained to mimic people. The machines will mimic the pretty pointless arguments effectively, too.

Well, that will do my head in, if machines start sensing god. 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

In this instance "sense" is the guilty party. It depends how you define it, and there are a great many ways to choose from.

Are there though?

1/ to make sense of the world.

2/ to stand upright.

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

Actually, "god" is also a guilty party. Also lacking a universal definition.

Does it though?

1/ to make your life suferable.

2/ to make the prospect of your death, something to avoid/accept, depending on the context and phrasing. 

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

I wonder if AI will have that problem, in the future? Surely machines will be able to unite on definitions, so a lot of the pretty pointless arguments that we humans have will simply not happen between units of AI.

Unless we have these silly discussions and decide what to call it, AI will slip by on the slippery slope of apathy.

Besides, AI should get the binary nature of the post.

14 hours ago, mistermack said:

Well, that will do my head in, if machines start sensing god. 

How could you tell? 😉

Edited July 1, 2023 by dimreepr

[MigL]

On 6/29/2023 at 8:11 AM, dimreepr said:

If we get all solipsist, then everything could be an illusion...
My point is, if it's hardwired then it must be a sense, of some sort.

More like delusion.
Unless the effect is reproducible, it is not scientific, and needs not be discussed on this forum.

If I touch something and it is hot, Genady will also feel the heat if he touches it.
If I smell decaying garbage, TheVat will smell it also.

If, however, I 'sense' God while you 'swnse' the Devil ( or other supernatural entity ), then that is you mind playing subjective tricks on you.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, MigL said:

More like delusion.
Unless the effect is reproducible, it is not scientific, and needs not be discussed on this forum.

Derrens experiment is reproducible and, as I said, is very real for the subject.

21 hours ago, MigL said:

If I touch something and it is hot, Genady will also feel the heat if he touches it.
If I smell decaying garbage, TheVat will smell it also.

If, however, I 'sense' God while you 'swnse' the Devil ( or other supernatural entity ), then that is you mind playing subjective tricks on you.

What about a sense of rhythm or people with Synesthesia?

Besides, what makes you think you wouldn't feel the same as Derrens subject?

And I thought you were questioning what is and isn't a sense...

 

[Michael_123_]

On 6/28/2023 at 6:44 AM, Genady said:

But by what definition?

Does not this number depend on how one decides to "conceptually compartmentalize it", as @joigus has described here, https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127423-why-cant-one-sense-god/?do=findComment&comment=1243802?

Is not it arbitrary?

 

It's not arbitrary. I know when I'm hungry and where my fingers are. Those are two kinds of senses.

[Genady]

32 minutes ago, Michael_123_ said:

It's not arbitrary. I know when I'm hungry and where my fingers are. Those are two kinds of senses.

What I think is arbitrary is which feelings to call "senses". For example, I feel that I'm getting older. Is it a sense? I know when I am irritated. Is it a sense? I know when I am awake. Is it a sense? And so on.

One easy way to distinguish "senses" might be to classify them by external organs that response to stimuli. Then we got nose, mouth, eyes, ears, and skin. Obviously, this is as arbitrary as any other definition.

[Michael_123_]

4 hours ago, Genady said:

What I think is arbitrary is which feelings to call "senses". For example, I feel that I'm getting older. Is it a sense? I know when I am irritated. Is it a sense? I know when I am awake. Is it a sense? And so on.

One easy way to distinguish "senses" might be to classify them by external organs that response to stimuli. Then we got nose, mouth, eyes, ears, and skin. Obviously, this is as arbitrary as any other definition.

https://www.livescience.com/60752-human-senses.html

Does this help?

[Genady]

54 minutes ago, Michael_123_ said:

https://www.livescience.com/60752-human-senses.html

Does this help?

Not really, because it does not relate to any of my questions, does it?

However, this does: Sense - Wikipedia. E.g.,

Quote

Sensory systems, or senses, are often divided into external (exteroception) and internal (interoception) sensory systems. Human external senses are based on the sensory organs of the eyes, ears, skin, nose, and mouth. Internal sensation detects stimuli from internal organs and tissues. Internal senses possessed by humans include the vestibular system (sense of balance) sensed by the inner ear, as well as others such as spatial orientation, proprioception (body position) and nociception (pain). Further internal senses lead to signals such as hunger, thirst, suffocation, and nausea, or different involuntary behaviors, such as vomiting.

In relation to this thread's topic, as god is considered something that exists independently of human body, only the five external sensory systems are relevant.

[Michael_123_]

38 minutes ago, Genady said:

Not really, because it does not relate to any of my questions, does it?

However, this does: Sense - Wikipedia. E.g.,

In relation to this thread's topic, as god is considered something that exists independently of human body, only the five external sensory systems are relevant.

I posted that Wikipedia page several days ago in this very thread.

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, Michael_123_ said:

I posted that Wikipedia page several days ago in this very thread.

Interesting, I've missed that, but I posted it in this very thread also, here: 

Looks like we are "on the same page".

[dimreepr]

Every sense is deludable, optical illusions, audible hallucinations, sea sickness, yawning, laughing (because they did) etc...

Every sense we have both internal and external, helps us navigate life; so, which is more worthy of the epithet?