Now you’re trying to give us homework?
If that were true, not only would every scientist and rational thinking human support the god hypothesis, but also, you’d win the Nobel prize.
You can assume all you like, you’ve yet to prove anything, empirically or demonstrably.
I won’t become angry in the slightest, I whole welcome theism to actually pull their finger out and make a solid case, rather then “I cannot explain X, science cannot explain X, therefore God.”
It certainly does lead to the notion that we all could be wrong, that still doesn’t get you to God.
Again, you can replace God with anything and it holds the same weight in an argument.
Once you demonstrate that a god is real, you can then start placing him into cogent arguments.
2 Likes
And you are just making ungrounded claims. People have experience, therefore God, is not an argument.
Can you demonstrate the experience of a rock for us. All you are doing is making assertions. Operationalize your data, do the experiment, and share the results. Show me how a rock has an experience.
Because you have demonstrated nothing. You are making inane assertions with no logical progression what so ever. Put your argument into a logical syllogism and see if it floats. I already did that for you based on what you have said and it looked completely foolish. Do you even know what you are talking about? \
Possibility is demonstrated. What can you demonstrate that indicates you are dealing with some sort of possibility. There are no possibilities without demonstrations. Can you demonstrate your version of a possibility should be considered.
i think you are lying Quim
2 Likes
So basically, our newcomer is a qualia fanboy.
The moment I saw Thomas Nagel being mentioned, this became clear.
Except that several modern “philosophers” are playing the same game as pedlars of religious apologetics - namely, presenting blind assertions as if they constituted fact, and their assertions can be safely discarded precisely because said assertions are blind. I’ve previously described this tendency elsewhere as “assertionism”, which is a brand of rot that permeates several disciplines. However, this pestilential tendency is particularly pernicious when it infects philosophy, whose proper remit isn’t to present assertions in this manner, but to determine which questions are pertinent to ask. The business of answering those questions is the remit of other disciplines.
Oh, and the fatuous attempt to characterise “experience” as some sort of magic quality that needs a magic man is precisely that - fatuous. Because “experience” is simply the name we give to any perception capable of being remembered.
Already alluded to this earlier, but as is usual, this was simply summarily dismissed with more assertionist cant.
Saving this for posterity. It’ll come in useful for later posts.
2 Likes
You misunderstand my point. I am not referring to brain activity as experience. Please read David Chalmers’ paper on this topic (1995) to understand the distinction between a physical process (such as brain activity) and the subjective experience associated with it.
Yes, believing in God implies believing in an external consciousness, among other things.
This statement is unverifiable, regardless of whether it is a consensus. We do not know if AI has any form of subjective experience, if plants have subjective experience, or if anything else outside the brain has subjective experience.
With our current knowledge, we are unable to explain it. We observe it, give it a name, establish a consensus, but that’s as far as we can go.
I cannot prove it, and you cannot prove the opposite. That’s the point.
Well, I can ask you to demonstrate the opposite: that AI, a calculator, an abacus, or a stone does not have experience. Your claim is equally unverifiable
Well, now you suggest that experience could arise without a brain, only through reacting
The difference is that the universe is infinitely more complex. The problem is that you assume that only biological entities can produce experience because they are biological, including plants that have no brain. But if we don’t label it as “biological,” then it supposedly lacks any experience because… well… it’s not biological. When you classify something as “biological,” suddenly the capacity for experience appears.
Yes, because not accepting your unverifiable consensus means I’m considered insane.
Let’s illustrate why the current consensus that brain activity produces “experience” is so absurd.
Imagine one person with an abacus. They move one bead. Does it produce experience? No…
Now we have two people with abacuses. The first person moves one bead, then the second person moves another bead, and they perform a simple calculation. Does it produce experience? No…
Now we have one thousand people with abacuses, moving their beads and performing complex calculations that result in the action of, let’s say, a mechanical arm. Does it produce experience? No…
Now imagine a billion people with a billion abacuses, performing complex calculations that make the arm act intelligently. Can we assume that the entire group of people has a subjective experience similar to ours?
What is the supposed minimum number of people required to consider that it is starting to produce subjective experience?
Or perhaps experience has always been present since the very beginning?
This is the problem that you fail to address: computing information and experience are two different categories of things.
1 Like
Ok, I try to deal in verifiable events…after all that is what history is made of…right?
So our “@Quim” (Shelley, yes, I thought exactly the same) is trying to make a case for “Universal Consciousness” aka his idea of “god” because there is no evidence to contradict his belief that there might be such a thing, aka “a possibility”.
May I enquire why the blue fuck we are, as a group wasting our collective intellects on such bollocks?
Sure all things could be conscious, all things could be connected, we could all be part of a giant mushroom dream…it is possible.
But for those of with a more practical bent…so the fuck what? Will it change your bacon sandwich? Will it turn Captain Cat from a good atheist puss into an evangelical Blue Bunny of Universe Creation?
Then what the fuck, @Quim, of the apposite nickname, are you going on about? You have no argument, not a shred of evidence and only a plagiarised form of assertion to make some sort of pointless debate.
There is a chap on social media pushing similar lard laden bollocks, he calls it “Theistic pragmatic epistemology”, where he maintains, in an overly verbose style, (with the help of Chat GPT) that personal experience is the equal of corroborated factual evidence. Are you pushing this intellectual wheel-less dung barrow uphill together?
Is silliness catching? Is everything in the universe so silly it is just a cosmic stand up routine? Really?
Edit" First and last post lest my brain experience life as Captain Cat and demand a belly rub.
4 Likes
I believe there may be a misunderstanding. Your proposition that such a possibility does not exist is equally arbitrary, unverifiable, and absurd. Therefore, it ultimately becomes a matter of personal choice, as I mentioned from the beginning.
This concept applies to you as well, except for the fact that you are outnumbered by the contradictions that I am attempting to resolve.
You may not grasp the distinction between consensus and truth. Both your assumption and mine are unverifiable. Furthermore, your explanation is as intricate as mine.
The dissimilarity lies in the fact that I do not succumb to the numerous contradictions that you do, such as the one I posted just above.
1 Like
I did not say that. I paraphrased your proposition. You “possibility” is unevidenced and therefore can be treated as just another opinion. it certainly makes no difference to the reality we move in, and so can be disregarded as intellectual dross until such time proper evidence can be examined. .
Nope. There is only one contradiction and that is entirely in your own imagination. Your bald, unevidenced assertions are possibilities, yes. Far fetched in my opinion, but make not a jot of difference to my cup of tea or Captain Cat’s insistence on a treat.
Nope. You find “its all irrelevant bollocks” intricate? What the hell are you smoking? Can I have some?
Again, no, the dissimilarity lies in the fact that you didn’t read my answer properly and proceed to regurgitate more pointless verbosity.
Your original assertion, question, hypothesis is tired, recycled unevidenced and tiresomely juvenile. If everything is conscious (and we have absolutely no evidence that that is so) and we are all part of a Universal Woo…so the fuck what? There, your question answered, you can forget the Depends and sleep well tonight.
2 Likes
Do you consider attempting to comprehend our subjective experience, which is the most significant aspect of our existence, to be insignificant?
Let me add this to the list of contradictions…
My you are persistent in your delusions.
- There is no contradiction.
- You posit “Universal Consciousness”
- I posit it is immaterial.
- You proceed to argue, misquote and misunderstand my point.
- I repeat that your argument is meaningless
- You tell me that it is the most significant aspect of our existence
- I repeat that your opinion, without any evidence to the contrary is meaningless.
- Captain Cat whispers that you are either unable to communicate properly or a troll.
3 Likes
Chalmers is an outspoken atheist, so please explain why you think panpsychism is evidence for a deity and he clearly does not? If he’s a valid source on this then it doesn’t support your argument for a deity.
Which deity by the way? You seem determined to ignore both these questions.
Why would you believe something you can’t know anything about? I am inclined to withhold belief from claims made in the absence of knowledge. I don’t need to know something is false in order to withhold belief either, it is sufficient to know that you can’t demonstrate a shred of objective evidence or any rational argument to support your subjective belief that panpsychism evidences any deity.
That’s not what he said, reacting to stimuli does not equate to experience, which is defined as practical contact with and observation of facts or events.
You;re still peddling this false dichotomy fallacy, I don’t need to prove something is impossible in order to withhold belief. As @Cognostic and i explained, possibility has to be demonstrated, not disproved. We have seen countless religious apologists try this nonsense.
Can you prove invisible cats are not possible? So one assumes then that you must believe they are possible, as those are the only two options you are claiming are valid. After all we know cats exist, and we know there are things we can’t see, ipso facto cats we can’t see must be possible right?
Sigh, false dichotomy fallacy, disbelieving your claim need not involve a contrary claim, all you are doing is moving it from an imaginary deity to imaginary consciousness, you have also failed to explain how this would evidence any deity, or which deity, as this would involve the very burden of proof you think you’re shifting here.
As I told you some time ago, this is not our first rodeo, and you will convince no one here with [logically fallacious arguments, littered with bare assumptions, even the two people you used as an appeal to authority fallacy, don’t share your belief that this evidences a deity, as they are outspoken atheists. the more this is explained, and the more you ignore this, demonstrates your argument is just a subjective belief you want to hold. Oh and every time you accuse others of having just an unevidenced assumption, no better than your own, you are simply denigrating your own position, it’s hilarious.
They were straw men fallacies, there were no contradiction beyond what you yourself created and falsely assigned others. Not believing your claim need not involve believing a contrary claim, this is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning I pointed out right at the start, it is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. The fact you haven’t addressed it at all speaks volumes.
No. he’s saying the bs you’re tacking onto the facts we observe is insignificant, as you cannot demonstrate any deity is possible, NB Even if you could demonstrate panpsychism had any validity and I don’t believe you can, as all you have are irrational arguments.
Or both of course…
2 Likes
You do realise you just called your position " arbitrary, unverifiable, and absurd" don’t you? The hilarity continues…
What you’re failing to understand is that I can not know whether something is true or not, as would be essential for all unfalsifiable claims, and still withhold belief. I would have to remain agnostic as well, and this is my position for all unfalsifiable claims, including all god claims.
1 Like
This answer corresponds to the original, unedited post.
The problem you still don’t understand is that subjective experience is an objective phenomenon. This fact is not even up for debate. We are not discussing pink unicorns here. To claim that “subjective experience only occurs in the brain” is as unfalsifiable as claiming the opposite because it cannot be measured. You are not being asked to admit something without evidence; instead, you are being asked to choose between two equally probable options.
Moreover, the assumption that processing information (brain activity) and subjective experience are the same thing is completely baseless. Unless you are going to tell me that a calculator can experience reality
When discussing subjective experience, there is a wide range of interpretations. However, it is important to note that a reaction alone does not serve as evidence of experience, and experience itself is not contingent on any particular reaction. This closely relates to the problem of zombies, which, of course, all of you have also neglected to address.
Here you go again with the fallacy. We are not discussing an imaginary concept, but rather an objective phenomenon known as “subjective experience,” which aligns with Chalmers’ definition. You arbitrarily attribute it to information processing in the brain, while I believe it is unrelated to information processing and deserves its own distinct category.
Incorrect once again, subjective experience is indeed an objective phenomenon. In fact, our understanding of reality exists solely because of our “internal experience” or “subjective experience,” or whatever term you prefer to use.
You are attempting to turn me into something that can be debated, but you are not debating my views. Instead, you are debating your own concoctions.
If you believe that something as seemingly useless as “subjective experience” evolved without any function, then you are contradicting the principle of evolution, which is based on natural selection.
… with the exception that this time we are discussing an objective phenomenon known as “experience” which you can’t explain with science …
And the time to believe such to be the case is after it has been verified. What evidence do you have?
We also create an external consciousness when we talk to our neighbor. So what. I assume I am talking to someone intelligent, but I could be wrong. You are not scoring any points here. People have personified gods from the beginning of time. That is not belief is an external consciousness. Not even close.
Have you performed any experiments to show that it does. The time to believe a claim is after it has been demonstrated and not before. Until then you are engaged in mental masturbation ;and nothing more./
I don’t have to prove the opposite. I am not the one making inane claims.
No. You can’t. That is a shifting of the burden of proof and a slimy tactic for someone professing to want a real discussion. You made the claim, now provide the evidence or admit you have none and try again with a different approach or come up with something better./ Your argument failed.
1 Like
And you have made another claim…
However, you cannot deny the existence of subjective experience in the universe. I assume it to be a general phenomenon, while you assume it to be a specific phenomenon related to information processing in the brain (and exclusively in brains, not in calculators or computers).
I am tempted to initiate a new debate titled “How many abacuses do you need to generate subjective experience?”
Sure I can. Lack of evidence is evidence of absence. If you told me there was a dead body in the trunk of a car, and we went out to the care and examined it. We found no hair, no blood, ;no DNA, no clothing fibers, No skin flakes, nothing whatsoever supporting your conclusion, we can conclude you must you are likely wrong. You might have seen something, but it was not a dead body. There is no reason, none whatsoever, to even entertain your inane claim. The time to believe a claim is after it has been demonstrated. You aren’t even close to a demonstration. Your just flapping your lips in the wind.
1 Like
No, you cannot deny your own subjective experience, and you are part of universe. That is precisely what I was referring to.