Yes. It’s rationally possible. The amount of real properties in reality is finite. The amount of information in reality is finite. The amount of connections between real properties and information in reality is finite.
Please provide the data you used to determine this.
You would argue with me about what I consider to be true for me?
Hahahahahahaha
Yes. I might appeal to my authority as a behavior analyst and someone who has studied psychology at the doctorate level, but my observations and studies have led me to the conclusion that life does not seek its termination and seeks either by mutual cooperation or adverse cooperation to integrate itself with “the other’, thereby increasing the freedom (utility) that the lifeform can achieve.
You’re appealing to the end product which isn’t an incorrect observation, but it might be short-sighted. Consciousness is the code of being. Life is just at arbitrary construct we use to define more complex beings of consciousness from less complex beings.
Because the view of the perfect good is inferred (as no conscious partial being knows everything), some subjects perceive the good better than others. Subjects which perceive the good have a greater likelihood of survival, replication, and prolongation.
Yes, I would. If offered something that could and would increase your utility in life, you would most certainly take it. You may not think that you would, but you do so even as we speak. You write, breathe air, read, etc… Do you not perceive these as good things? Why else would you continue to communicate with me?
Tory Higgins (1987) developed self-discrepancy theory, showing that discrepancies between one’s actual self and “ideal” or “ought” self-guides produce distinct negative emotional states (dejection, anxiety, etc.).
Langens (2001) — in a study on need for achievement and self-discrepancy, people with large discrepancies act in ways to reduce that dissonance.
Bandura’s Moral Disengagement Theory shows how people rationalize or re-frame harmful actions to avoid guilt (e.g., by dehumanizing victims, minimizing consequences, diffusing responsibility).
Neurobiological model / Allostasis theory: Research shows that chronic drug use leads to neuroadaptations (in systems like the amygdala, stress systems) such that withdrawal and negative emotional states become a powerful motivator for continued use.
How do you address the many criticisms of each of these?
Sheldon, I am claiming that objective reality is deity full stop: a pantheistic model through which we might explore the concept of God, the Divine, and Consciousness. I am starting with the basics…IF God existed, what would it be like?
If you want to discuss the existence of God, we could do that. However, we currently have no agreed upon definition of what “God” is, it would be pointless (Theological noncognitivism)
I distinguish between what the subjective mind perceives within its higher operational processes vs. its baser processes. For example, you before objected to the idea that you would not accept an opportunity for increased utility (freedom) with no strings attached. However, what actually happened is that you did perceive a string attached with concession to my point (within your baser cognitive processes). Sensing this friction, you created a defense to preserve your own sense of cooperation, integration, and harmony with your perceived sense of self.
- That did not, in any way, shape, or form answer my question
- It was yet another word salad
1 Like
I’ll make it simpler.
All detrimental behavior arises either from the will’s attempt to resolve inner dissonance or from the intellect’s attempt to justify an action as necessary for preserving coherence: whether consciously or unconsciously.
This explains:
escape behavior
reinforcement-driven behavior
emotion regulation
moral disengagement
self-serving rationalization
impulsive relief-seeking
existential dissonance
- That did not, in any way, shape, or form answer my question
- It was yet another word salad
1 Like
Alright… I’ll make it even simpler:
All detrimental behavior (behavior contrary to cooperation, integration, and harmony) arises either from the will’s (subjective inference of the consciousness) attempt to resolve inner dissonance (lack of freedom or access to utility) or from the intellect’s (subjective inference related to quantities) attempt to justify an action as necessary for preserving coherence (giving up freedom in one domain to gain more freedom in another domain): whether consciously or unconsciously .
I’m done with you. You are either incapable or unwilling to give a straight answer to any questions.
3 Likes
Nothing there that can’t be explained through evolution, and certainly nothing to remotely evidence a deity or anything supernatural.
I really must learn to scroll down first, beat me to it again.
Please stop repeating the claim and address my objections.
You are starting with unevidenced subjective claims, and false equivalence fallacies. You are refusing to address these objections at all, and endlessly repeating the claims.
You keep saying we? And you brought your theistic beliefs and claims here to an atheist forum, do you really imagine I have to offer a definition of your belief, that you have failed to accurately define, evidence at all, and that I don’t share?
That’s a subjective distinction yet again.
I’ll make this very very simple for you, are you able to offer the best reason you have for believing any deity exists, if not then thanks for your time and I am out, if yes then please do so, no more subjective unevidenced claims, assuming you have anything more than wishful thinking?
Please explain how this is compatible with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Can you know ALL real properties without affecting the system? I.e. is it possible to simultaneously meaure properties which have noncommutable operators?
Position in quantum mechanics is an attribute of an interaction: not an intrinsic property. From this point of view the uncertainty principle is not a fundamental quantum property, but a concept.
Sheldon, are you sure?
The words that I use (cooperation, integration, harmony) are readily understood by a behaviorist as the three categories of behavioral evolution: naturalistic, environmental, and social.
If we cannot agree what a deity even is, what use would it be to try to prove for one? The order of inquiry would be detrimental to the qualifier.
First, we need to arrive at an agreed mutual definition. After that, we can prove for and provide evidence. Doing it backwards (not defining terms) isn’t conductive to rational inquiry.
I have given a straight answer. If you need help to understand, I will gladly help. However, be honest.
About what, you have yet again failed to offer a quote for any context.
You believe they exist, define what you believe exists, then explain why you hold the beliefs, evidence all your claims. Stop misrepresenting what is asked, with words like prove.
Nonsense, you brought your beliefs to an atheist forum, you need to define what you believe exists, and you need to evidence it, no one is obliged to agree. Least of all with bare poorly defined assertions.
Get on with it then, or do you expect anyone to believe you hold a belief in a deity or deities you can’t even define.
That’s your fault, you’re the one who wants to reel off unevidenced claims, without even defining what it is your making unevidenced claims about.
It’s time to piss….or get off the pot. You came to me, I didn’t come to you making claims.
1 Like