how does the interaction of immaterial things work? You can't tell me it at all. I can't say it doesn't exist but I can say that there is a lack of proof for it as such that I so far can't say that it exists.
The same can be said of many things. That there is such a thing as objective truth is something almost all reasonable people accept and yet how we know of such an immaterial thing is confusing. Same thing with the laws of science. How they affect physical matter is unknown but it does not mean those laws don't have influence. Same with ethical matters and numerous other aspects of life. Same with the scientific proposal that there are 11 dimensions!
it cannot be what constitutes the reality of experienced space-time. Go fucking chop up your brain or take up heroin, and tell me if you're experiencing space-time or not. And yet everything we claim to make is ultimately a product of entropy itself.
I don't mind other theories of the mind, but think of it this way, if you are going to go paranormal or outside-of-our-understanding idealism, tell me how you're going to explain the world in terms of relevance? I can say X exists or Y exists,
If justice is merely the result of chemicals interacting then why is it that one person's [or the majority chemical interaction] gets to be 'right' and someone else 'wrong'? Surely someone can say that their notion that it's just to torture innocent children is just their own private chemical reaction going on in their body and how dare anybody play at being the 'chemical reaction police'?
Value and truth are ultimately derived from an impositive system created by the chemical interactions of your brain, someone can rape someone and asked them genuinely if they had fun but not even understand the value of justice, or non-violence. An argument from ignorance, or lack of understanding doesn't support your argument of a God existing at all. Where the f did you get since the brain is a material thing in space-time,
If value and truth are merely "chemical interactions" in a physical brain then this raises very serious questions about the objectivity of such things. For one it raises the concern of whether these interactions take place only for my survival benefit. Next, how do material interactions come to have any concern about non-material matters such as truth? How does matter become an authority on something non-material?
If god is everywhere, then why do you keep on claiming god is transcendental, beyond space and time, beyond logic? If so you already have made a claim that god is non-temporal and non-spatial. This is the essence of one of his arguments.
If I chopped out your brain, took out all your neurons, and sewed your brain together, you can then tell me that I'm completely unimpressed that you're not thinking. In our present day we can do fRMI scans and whatnot of your brain,
On a practical, daty-to-day basis, what is the difference between an immaterial god and an imaginary one? By that I mean how would one decide that the FSM, for example, is imaginary and not just immaterial?
Not much IF the ONLY attribute of God was immateriality. But God has positive attributes and one of them is that he speaks. Therefore he has communicated with humanity on many differing levels, both propositionally and experientially, and that is what makes the huge difference between the two.
@TheCartesianTheist Okay, so god is immaterial and he speaks. I understand how a material agent can speak and be spoken to (vocal chords, ears, brains), but how would an immaterial being do any of those things? In other words, how is it that an immaterial entity interacts with a material one? How is it that you know that god speaks? How would you differentiate between a divine phenomenon and a mundane one like hallucinations and such?
This criticism you make is what we call in philosophy a category error. It's a criticism based on an analogy with something which it is completely different to and more dislike than like. We are not speaking here of some finite being. We are speaking of an omnipotent being. If the immaterial being is omnipotent then it can, of course, quite logically interact with the material. Also keep in mind that science no longer knows what 'material' means thanks to quantum physics.
@TheCartesianTheist I know what a category error is, thank you. But I posited no such criticism, as I only responded to a claim that you made. Namely your knowledge of god's immaterialness and his ability to speak. I asked you how that can be. By saying that omnipotence makes it logical only dodges my question. I also asked how one should differentiate hallucination from revelation. I can see how quantum mechanics redefines 'material,' but It doesn't 'not know.'
I find it hard to believe you know what a category error is if you're willing to come back and do the same thing a second time! I have already explained how the attributes are consistent and make him able to speak. The question of discerning God's voice compared to some illusion is another matter completely. On that matter I think one has to listen to as many voices as one can and then attempt to use logic to discern what makes the most sense of life [broad answer I know].
@TheCartesianTheist Excuse me, sir, but you, not I, brought up speech, I only responded to your claim. You said that god is immaterial and can speak. Speech is a phenomenon that is very rare and we know but one way it can come about. You said that there is another method, so I asked you how it is that you know that. If you are going to say he speaks because he can (omnipotence), then that is fine, but you have explained and demonstrated nothing.
@TheCartesianTheist If you don't have sufficient information logic can sometimes be inaccurate. It happens all the time in Biology and Chemistry (my fields) so many times I have made logical conclusions that had I had more information would not be logical. I think rudegar20 still has a point. HOW is this immaterial being speaking in this material world. At some point he must cause a change in matter, whether that is in neurons or in environmental particle matter. How does that change occur.
No doubt the process is not a natural one. You see, the God whom Christians believe in is not a natural one but a supernatual one. But since that being was powerful enough to create ex nihilo I'm sure it's not too much trouble for him to speak in a variety of ways. By the way, we don't even know that God's speech has to take a "material" form anymore since lots of quantum phycisists are now suggesting to us that matter may not actually be what we thought it was.
@halfLotusMusic "Are you aware that color is a physical phenomena?"
Are you aware that modern physics now indicates that we are living in a virtual reality? (this would mean that light of specific wavelengths, brains, atoms etc. are all virtual as well) watch?v=H13_3AjFxRw
BTW I'm in physics, and there is LOTS of evidence for this theory right now -an alarming amount of it in fact (just take a look at that video). If you have evidence to the contrary please post it.
@JohananRaatz Cite one paper with EVIDENCE that this is a virtual reality. Cite any. Please. We will all wait. And when you cannot, I will point that you are making a well-known philosophical idea that has existed for a thousands years and no one cares. Offer actual evidence in a peer-reviewed paper that points explicitly to a virtual reality. We will all wait while you don't reply.
"The emergence of the physical world from information processing" by Brian Whitworth
FYI I have a list of major physicists the length of my arm saying the world is information at bottom. QIT and QG (via the holographic principle and Shannon entropy) all tell us this.
Given what we now know about physics, people who deny it are comparable to creatards.
And no it's not philosophy, information and matter behave measurably differently.
@JohananRaatz His paper cites no evidence of his proposition. Only an alternative viewpoint without evidence. I repeat: *Cite a paper with EVIDENCE that points EXPLICITLY towards a virtual reality.*
@halfLotusMusic A.)The default position is that reality is virtual since all we see is information. If you want to posit matter you must cough up some evidence.
B.)Materialism can't explain certain experiments: watch?v=6xKUass7G8w
C.)This stuff about "alternative interpretations" is silly -physics didn't magically align so that it LOOKS like the world is virtual. You might also say that fossils were planted to test our faith.
D.)If you want it more explictly read Smolins 3 Roads.
@JohananRaatz Hahahahah. You are hilarious. You cite the double slit experiment as if that interpretation is demonstrably superior. Again, I posit the following: You have no evidence that EXPLICITLY points to virtual reality. You have interpretations of the same data except yours in untestable. That isn't science. That is philosophy. Stop pretending you have anything beyond an opinion this issue. One that has existed for thousands of years, infact. No one cares.
You didn't watch it then. I cited the delayed choice quantum eraser. The double-slit experiment is only the first part.
"EXPLICITLY"
Sure I do. A particle couldn't possibly have shown up after the film was pulled back if materialism is correct.
"untestable"
I just pointed out where it is tested. Yours isn't however. You haven't produced a shred of evidence that matter actually exists behind our observations. Stop being a retard.
"Are you aware that color is a physical phenomena?"
That's a very vague statement. Of course it is, IN THE SENSE, that a wave is required for sensing the colour. However, the COLOUR ITSELF is not a physical phenomena in the sense that the wave has a colour or that if I cut open the brain there are colours in there. Colour is the subjective experience of the objective wave. Therefore your rash conclusion is shown to be exactly that.
@TheCartesianTheist Are you aware that color, scientifically, is defined by wavelength and not by what a person sees? Calling light "red" is like calling it "UV." We can't see UV light, so we don't have a color *perception* for them, but bees do. So is your argument that *perception* of color is subjective and, outside of what "evidentialism" can explain? Look forward to your answer!
"Are you aware that color, scientifically, is defined by wavelength and not by what a person sees?"
Since I'd just made that clear in my last post to you I find it odd you ask?!
I never said it was "outside of what 'evidentialism' can explain" did I? In fact that view would contradict my last post as well. I suggest you start reading my posts and watching my videos with a lot more careful consideration instead of jumping to false conclusions.
@TheCartesianTheist Do you understand the difference I am trying to make in your mind? Color *is* an objective physical phenomena. Perception of color isn't an objective physical phenomena. I am asking for for you to recognize why those two are completely different. When one argues as an adult, they do not concern themselves with the next point until the prior one is established. Also, you seem incapable of thinking without insults. Are you concerned about something?
@TheCartesianTheist I am not equivocating. You simply fail to respect scientific definitions. Colors are defined by a set of wavelengths of light. Just as with UV, microwaves, or any other form. The perception of color is the subjective experience for which one may use the term colloquially, but it is important recognize that if you are trying to be correct *precision* is important.
@halfLotusMusic I feel the need to interject with an analogy.
My best freind through university had colour defiency: he perceived what we see as red and blue as indistinguishable (and it made no sense to ask if red was blue or vice versa) but saw the rest of the visible light spectrum as we do (eg green vs orange). Colour, as you define it, is simply what the majority of people witness, but it is not the objective reality for there are those who witness different results with the same object.
@AMWOODco 1) That isn't an analogy. 2) That is a colloquial definition of color, not the scientific one. 3) I can't see blues from purples, so I don't need a pretend story, as if that is informative. 4) Color is *not* subjective. Colors are defined by a set of wavelengths. 5) The *perception* of color is subjective.
@halfLotusMusic I must say that number 3 of your comments seems to be rather insulting to me. I did not make up a 'pretend story', it is the actual case that my friend is unable to differentiate red from blue. On what grounds do you accuse me of lying?
@halfLotusMusic That perception of colour is what colour is, since colour is an attribute of the visible wavelength of light perceived by a sensible being, and thus described by the being, and eventually polemicised over by sciolists. UV and microwaves etc. are not colours per se,
@Lepsaeus What you are describing provides evidence of that you are refusing all basics facts of science you do not understand. You may say that colors were first *discovered* by what we saw, but that changes nothing. Blue light is a specific range of wavelengths. You can look it up. If you were scientifically literate you would realize colors have ceased to be "what you see" for decades. Your refusal to update your knowledge suggests why you misunderstand other scientific data
@halfLotusMusic I don't know what alternative scientific literature you concern yourself with, and why you refuse to enlighten us with. But, in essence colour is: Aspect of any object that may be described in terms of hue, brightness, and saturation. It is associated with the visible wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, which stimulate the sensor cells of the eye. Encyclopædia Britannica And, yes, a recipient is prerequisite; otherwise.. we have 450-495 nm of wavelength.
I did not say that there was not a **colloquial** definition. And look! You can read a layman's reference tool. And then you can also see the **scientific** definition of light. Wow. Furthermore, I am only pointing out 1) your natural resistance to accepting an imprecise understanding and 2) your belligerence over basic facts. What evidence do you have that a recipient is required? Simply show the data.
@halfLotusMusic The fact is that this is not a colloquial definition, (regardless of your nugatory attempts at relabelling it ) it is the definition in essence. I am not the one who owes someone any data or evidence in the situation. "I am only pointing out 1) your natural resistance to accepting an imprecise understanding" Thanks, that's a compliment. My alleged belligerence over basic facts make me wonder what those facts were after all.
@JohananRaatz It is the double slit experiment, I hope you realize. Modified to examine a particular phenomena, but it asks the same questions. You are positing that the only explanation for the fact that a detection of a particle pattern at D0 pre-empts the point at which we could "know" that we will know. It was is QUITE interesting, sure, but that does not point to virtual over material until we can say it is not explicable by material phenomena, which he don't know yet.
@halfLotusMusic The modified form of it shows something the regular form can't though.
"until we can say it is not explicable by material phenomena, which he don't know yet."
The only way that's possible is if signals can go in excess of c, which relativity says is impossible.
You seem hesitant about the conclusion, but this stuff shows up all over the place. Watch this and tell me if you really think material reality is the better explanation: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
Rather than say "it must exceed the speed of light," I would rather suggest that that is more likely one of our 'facts' of is misunderstood or outright wrong. Quantum entanglement may not be understood mechanistically, but the majority of theorists feel there is a long way to travel before declaring it a virtual world. Furthermore, I don't care about your home movies. I return to my statement, yours is one interpretation, a philosophical one. It isn't even particularly new.
@halfLotusMusic "more likely one of our 'facts' of is misunderstood or outright wrong."
We do, said "fact" is that matter exists. This becomes more obvious when we get into quantum gravity and the holographic principle and the theory becomes necessarily formulated in terms of information rather than matter.
"majority of theorists feel"
You're sure? Because I can list off a whole lot of big names that agree.
You are effectively falling into the solipsistic trap of making everything meaningless.
We MUST assume that what our senses (and the readings from the sensors that we build) are real. At least the ones that are verifiable by other people, otherwise we can trust nothing, including our own senses.
If there are other realms that are not detectable by us then they are immaterial, but in the sense of the word that they don't matter.
If they are detectable, however, then they must be material.
You basically did complete circular reasoning there.
We "MUST" assume the senses are real because "otherwise we can trust nothing, including our own sense"? Yea that's not a very convincing argument.
"If they are detectable, however, then they must be material." Why? Is this a true logical conclusion or one made from expected experience based on past results (aka the Fallacy of Induction)?
Still no contradiction, if God is making the claim he is anywhere or somewhere it doesn't take away from his omnipresence, (analogy for clarity) just as the Universe is still the Universe in terms of being everywhere if someone claims Florida is in the Universe. Or the Florida is a part of the Universe. No contradiction
02.53 But the CONTENT of many of my thoughts can be detected by my five senses; and it isn't at all obvious to me why the unobservable CONTENT, that cannot, provides an immediate problem for materialism? Oh, and why are we shouting the word "CONTENT"?
Is the OA valid? If so then you still have to deny a premise. Parodies literally do nothing to undermine a valid argument. The problem with parodies is not that they are invalid. Its that they are unsound especially since their proponents know "islands" and "unicorns" are absurdities. God is a legitimate question.
Atheist's idea of existence isn't anything like wikipedia's. Israel leads the world in science, they are #4. I've written just that Israel leads the world in science and have been called a liar because some atheist thought the word lead is interchangeable with the idea that they are #1. 17 definitions for the word lead on Word Monkey Dictionary (my favorite) andn not one of them means to be #1. Israel IS #1 in stem cell research last I checked. Love should be the goal of writing.
*browsing through the comments* Wow, everyone's jumping on the absolute idealism bandwagon. I wonder why? Lord knows that I still don't fully understand it. Trying to get through the words of I Am The Walrus still gives me headaches (then again, many songs by the Beatles give me headaches when I try to understand the words).
What I find in much of the discussion on the net about ideas is the lack of humility and not a lot of modeling a capacity for learning. People seem to hold positions... Yet we are actors in the world. Honesty demands that we wrestle with the results of what we hold to... Thank you for this video... Materialism ... as a world view completely failed my family on multiple levels.
I think that our true reality is ungraspable in this form, even with our thoughts and senses. It could be possible that this world is mere illusion or distortion that we cannot fully comprehend. That and the atoms that make up this universe are mostly empty, so there must be something grander beyond us that is the true form of reality but I have no clue what it is.
CartesianTheist, this video is not one of your best. I believe that your understanding of materialism is limited, and that you would benefit from reading some of the more intelligent materialists. A careful, or even cursory, reading of Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" (available online) would challenge your view of the "essence" of materialism.
I notice you don't go into any details at all of how this video is mistaken? Care to?
I did also go out of my way to make it clear that I was INTRODUCING the first part of a series in which I am going to go into greater detail on some of these theories. I seriously doubt that reading Lenin would change my view of materialism especially since he's writing before quantum physics took off. Still - you could make a video on his materialism and why it should be heard?
@TheCartesianTheist To begin, you wrote "Materialism in philosophy, is the view that everything which exists is composed of matter." While undoubtedly there are materialists who subscribe to this view, especially among the philosophically naive, that view is nowhere to be found in Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, etc. and is contradicted by numerous direct statements by these authors, as well as being opposed by the body of their work.
Exactly. And that is why you are criticising me for doing something I never did! If you read the blurb under my video you might just begin to understand that.
There is, by the way, nothing stopping you from making a video about these forms of materialism and posting it as a response to my video. If you do that I go on the record promising you I will accept it. Not only that but I will attempt to interact with it as well.
@TheCartesianTheist You are confusing me. What I have criticized is your statement that "Materialism in philosophy, is the view that everything which exists is composed of matter." You now say that I am criticizing you for doing something you never did! That makes no sense to me. I don't see what in the blurb would make me understand that you didn't do (what exactly?) that I have criticized. Clarification would be appreciated.
@StupidTheist@TheCartesianTheist Have you two seen Robert Redford's movie A River Runs Through It? "And being a Scot... believed that the art of writing lay in thrift".
Points well received come in small packages. Define your terms, simply.
@JCrownwell They both started off on opposite sides of the field and have different coaches. The stupid theist began with a personal attack saying this wasn't CT's best effort. I think CT's videos are all extremely clear and he asked ST to name a specific. "Philosophy of Materialism". When you have different coaches they're going to have different views with different plays in their book etc. Our objective especially on Christmas shouldn't be winning, it should be kindness. Yes, intriguing
Christian god claims logically fall apart as presented by the bible given what is currently known. Generic claims of god are vacuous and are therefore meaningless.
So, regardless of how poor our understanding of various things maybe, our basis for the claims of any god is actually poorer, since, if one claims that are current level of knowing anything is bad, doesn't it get worse when extrapolations must be made on the ignorance to make any claim of any god?
@TimelessApologist Any claim of atheism is predicted on the claim of theism. There is no support for theism so both claims are meaningless. It's like claiming that someone believes in the mythological unicorn and the another lacks belief in the unicorn, given the base, the positions are pointless. So, without support for the claim of god, the argument about god is an argument over imaginary constructs. Since, anything could be considered with nothing to decide anything.
Unnicorns and God are not analogous, way to expose your Dawkinite attitude, but if you wish to give me reasons on why a Unicorn can create the Universe, please list the attributes of the Unicorn. I'd like to see your philosophical credentials.
Lack of belief, disbelief, rejection, pan-theism, I hear many definitions of atheism from different atheists, but I can never tell what type of atheist I'm bumping into, so you all need to get together and clear this up.
@TimelessApologist The reason that I claim then to be analogous is that one can (and people do) make many claims about each, however, without something to to substantiate the claim - where is the basis to claim either real? What can say any god claim is right? What can say any god claim is wrong? If there is no basis to make any adjudication, where is the basis to consider it real? What basis is there to claim anything?
if YOU the atheist asserts "it is possible that God does not exist" is that not the same as saying God is impossible? Unless you are speaking of epistemic possibility in which case you can't get to their conclusion since God may nevertheless be possible. But if the former, then YOU still have to show that the concept of God is incoherent and, at that point, they can just deny that God is possible without the parody.
"doesn't it get worse when extrapolations must be made on the ignorance to make any claim of any god?"
Wrong, as Anselm's concept of God is still used today. Anselm used this concept around 1000 years ago. Therefore your claim is meaningless.
Just because you say Christian God claims fall apart presented by the bible given what is currently known, doesn't mean Christian God claims fall apart when presented by the bible. this is not an argument...
@TimelessApologist Does it ever strike you as strange that one must create concepts for there to be anything at all to say about any god? However, where is the backing for any of these concepts other than the imagination? And if it is only based in the imagination, where is there any basis to claim it real?
@TimelessApologist Which god concept are you using? There are so many! I was referring to the bible for the particular depiction that I was giving. However, I will review other claims as well... have another notion in mind? Since, they are all equally supported, at least those that have been presented to me...which is to say...there is no support...
There is plenty of support if you understand proper philosophy. Maximally excellent being = being who is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in some possible world W; Maximally great being = being who is maximally excellent in every possible world
@TimelessApologist The contradictions presented were from the bible, should I use another reference for your notion of god? Please tell me what contradiction have I made, since, I referenced no person, but the claims of the bible...which said nothing about anyone seeing god in this passage, just a claim of what god did...which is what constitutes the contradiction at least as it is presented. I guess one could claim that the bible presents things badly - not perfect eh?
The Contradiction is to show an imperfect being, in which you didn't do anything at all.
When you say the bible presents things badly and not perfect you are using a "subjective" opinion as how can you MYcontext understand what "perfect" actually is?
An Imperfect being complaining about a Perfect being does not magically make the perfect being imperfect.
@TimelessApologist I didn't complain about any being. I spoke of the depiction of a being as being contradictory, since, there is no basis to claim a being. I spoke of the bible as being imperfect given all the contradictions that it contains.
@TimelessApologist Can't make a claim with regards to your proof. However, it will ask one question before I learn the required material to actually evaluate your proof claims.
Question: What is the basis by which the proof is derived? Since, the proof (whatever the proof is claimed to be a proof of) would need to address the scope of claims made, which are inherent in whatever the proof is derived from and/or supporting.
@TimelessApologist You should be aware of the logical issues in the bible with claims of God. I will give a simple one... God is claimed to be everywhere, however, in the tower of babel story, god is claimed to come down to see them building the tower.
1) If one is truly everywhere, there is no where one can go.
2) if one knows everything, why would there be a claim of coming down to see anything.
There are many other areas where the bible tells you it is a story.
Well - he claims that he has a post-graduate degree in it. It's quite possible since I think his thesis was on political philosophy. This means he may well know next to nothing on the philosophy of religion. However, I am not alone in being extremely unimpressed with his brand of philosophical atheism which appears as naive as Objectivism.
@TheCartesianTheist oh ok. well i asked because i looked through his videos and pretty much all of them seemed like he picked up a coffee table version of religious philosophy in 90 minutes or less. it just seemed, at least to me, that he wasnt really trying to understand opposing arguments or the actual root of it, but rather learning only things that bolstered his own preconceived beliefs. also noticed peacock feathers and such "look at how smart i am.i make videos 'proving' God doesnt exist."
I believe the reason for this is that he has actually been influenced by Objectivism. I suspect he is going to absolutely HATE the digital physics (Wheeler's "It from bit." revolution). Of course I have known several Objectivists famous and otherwise to sometimes openly attack modern physics for not conforming to Rand's philosophy.
The "machine" is actually thoughts inside of a Ghost! lol
Ask an honest physicist and the answer is "We really don't know yet!" That's why the atheist who uses materialism dogmatically to argue againt God is really saying:
"Something which I don't know what it is is the only thing which exists and nothing else can exist in any way whatsoever!"
And yet the theist is the one making the bold claims apparently?!? Nice to hear from you hippo!
one could forgive it if one or two atheists out of the whole bunch would admit and show there are more philosophies about the natural world than materialism. but because they don't it shows that they reek of agenda, and either atheism is a very ignorant world view, or most atheists are intellectually dishonest.
it is good that you make these videos to counter their arguments, or some people could be deceived by them.
Your statements about colors touch on what's known as "The Argument from Qualia."
I'm making a study of this argument, and I thought that you might also be interested in it. I'm eventually going to produce a video that includes the Argument from Qualia, but I need to become more familiar with it first.
Thanks. Yes. I thought about using the term but was going to introduce it in the next video. There are some interesting interviews about qualia on the 'Closer to Truth' videos. That would be a good place to go if you haven't already.
The materialist is also engaging in blatant circular reasoning, which is a classic logical fallacy that even an infant could see through:
1. Materialism is correct. Therefore::
2. Nothing exists outside the material universe. Therefore:
3. Materialism is correct.
The above statements are unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and materialism is therefore rejected as false, irrational, unscientific, illogical hogwash.
@1GodOnlyOne ??? The claim of material is based on what appear to be material. Granted the "nature" of the material may well be questionable, however, by what means does one claim that it isn't present? All of what we understand seems to be predicated on a material basis - whatever that notion actually consists of. So, are you suggesting that the stuff that we could material is non-existent?
Spoken like a true apostle of bible belt theology with atheistic hermeneutics
1) The Bible wasn't written by God, therefore human interpretations = so other humans can understand. This is a terrible objection
2) Omniscience doesn't imply One cannot still make claims of what God is doing. You seem to put your own restraints on what God can and cannot do, as a human I question where you get this credibility? I see no contradiction you need to work harder
@TimelessApologist "...Bible wasn't written by God, therefore human interpretations..." I am aware of that fact. Given the depictions, it is clearly a fiction created by the notions of what "must be" at the time. However, the claims are baseless and the text demonstrates how incoherent the claims actually are.
You see no contradiction? If I said that I know EVERYTHING and then asked you to take a test, wouldn't you think I lied about knowing EVERYTHING?
@MyContext If I were in fact EVERYWHERE, wouldn't it be a contradiction to suggest that it is even possible for me to go ANYWHERE. Since, if I could actually go ANYWHERE it is clear that I wasn't actually everywhere. Are you suggesting that this is NOT a contradiction? Please explain how it is not a contradiction...if you still think there is no contradiction.
God is omnipresent, if someone sees God that doesn't imply he is not omnipresent. God is omniscient and knows everything, but now you are stating that God doesn't have many options due to this omniscience. So you limit God's options. You are claiming an omniscient being cannot make a claim of coming down to see anything (building the tower).
This is absolute nonsense, how exactly does that imply that God is not omniscient?
@TimelessApologist I am claiming that the ANY statement of an omnipresent omniscient being going ANYWHERE or having to do ANYTHING to see anything is a contradiction to the attributes claimed. So, yes the claim could be made, however, it also entails a contradiction, which suggests a lie or a misrepresentation, however, it cannot be said to be okay.
Omnipotence doesn't have the problem. neither does Omnipresent, One can still be ANYWHERE and claim to be Somewhere. You are creating your own criteria on HOW an Omnipresent being SHOULD act.
If God is omnipresent and claims to be somewhere he still can be EVERYWHERE at the same time. hence there is no contradiction at all. L2Ontological Argument
@TimelessApologist I agree...god as depicted could claim to be anywhere, however, that is the contradiction. It can't claim to GO anywhere. Since, the implication is that it is NOT already there.
Not really, as it depends on how one wishes to take it.
Someone saying "god will go with you" doesn't make any contradiction at all given the language game that the statement is being used. As that statement can be the same as "god will never leave you".
@UncannyRicardo No argument, however, that was not the context in which that statement was used. Check out the Tower of Babel story - it is short with lots of problems.
@UncannyRicardo Genesis 11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.
Linguistically, the construction of this sentence is in conflict with the idea of actually being everywhere. It is also in conflict with the idea of being all knowing.
No I don't see any logical conflict. All I see is that that statement appears to imply God payed attention to the Tower that was being built.
However this is not what I thought you were discussing. I only responded to your claim "god as depicted could claim to be anywhere, however, that is the contradiction. It can't claim to GO anywhere." , which I stated is not logically contradictory depending on the usage of the words.
A materialist is like a man who places a camera inside a sealed box, takes pictures of the inside of the box, and concludes that nothing could possibly outside the box, based solely on the fact that his own limited and flawed system doesn't take pictures anywhere but inside the box.
Colour is a bad analogy a proton is a material object your eyes your brain are also material things, perception itself is a physical process neurons electrons and so on
@RevDevilin Perception is not material -- who is the perceiver? The body? The brain? No, neither one can perceive -- they are composed of inert matter, and inert matter cannot perceive anything. All the same chemicals and structures are present in a dead body and brain, but no perception takes place there because the soul is no longer present.
Perception is a spiritual process (the soul), not a material one. If it were material, then brains in dead bodies would also perceive, but they do not.
@1GodOnlyOne "who is the perceiver? The body? The brain?" yes it's the same thing-ish as one influences the other and vice versa,can dead organic material still perceive, nope but living organic material can, and the state of perception can be altered dramatically, via drugs magnetic fields inserting electrodes and computer chips into your brain and so on, and damage to your brain can also alter your perception, this is all well-documented
Changing the physical body/brain changes perception because the mind (perciever) uses that body as its base of perception, however that doesn't change the fact (like CT said) that the senses of sound, quality, etc... are not physical. Thus they aren't founded on a material cause.
Again no, the way someone percieves may be altered due to physical causes in the body/mind. The qualities that we experience (especially for Berkeley) are all mental/immaterial. Thus ultimately perception is a completely subjective intangible phenomena.
@UncannyRicardo Ish serious progress is being made in mapping thought patterns, the real key is understanding the operating language that the brain uses, and some serious money is being spent to crack this problem, ie the uniquely subjective bit will disappear in the future, it is not a "intangible phenomena" it's just physics
No not really, since none of the phenomena is in physics yet anyway. Even other qualities like shapes, space, texture, etc... which appear to be tangible are really only mind subjective as well as shown by the views of Berkeley and other idealistic thinkers.
@UncannyRicardo Berkeley funny google "Scientists Reconstruct Brains’ Visions Into Digital Video In Historic Experiment" when it becomes repeatable it is no longer a "intangible phenomena" it's just physics, which is what our mind's are thought patterns that can be read, the magic has gone replaced by hard cold technology, there is still some magic out there, but it's not here (the mind) any-more
" when it becomes repeatable it is no longer a "intangible phenomena" " Sorry but nope, neuroscience wont help you much here. Infact the brain has little to nothing to do with the idealistic views themselves, since they are more focused on all of reality rather than just the mind.
The rather unabsolute "structure" of all the types of sensation (primary and secondary) pretty much makes any non rationalistic "proofs" irrelevent or without actual support.
@DoktorSigmundFreud I don't it's a presumption based upon electrical activity within the mind, when the stops it is presumed you are dead, how do you know your awake ? :D
It's not a bad example since a proton is not the colour we experience! The colour itself is not actually physically present in any part of the atom. That is the point.
@TheCartesianTheist Ops did I say proton, talk type does have its drawbacks, photon
The colour we experience is entirely based upon matter, or energy fields to be more precise, it is entirely manipulable as is your perception ie damage the correct part of brain and your perception will change, the perception of colour is done via the wavelength of the light and its interaction with your nervous system
Exactly my point still. It is based upon some physical interaction taking place and yet it is still more than the physical interaction as described by the science. However science can describe it - it is always more than what it actually is to my subjective experience. Thus the problem of qualia is regarded as a serious problem for strict materialism.
@TheCartesianTheist@RevDevilin Why would any particular subjective experience be a challenge to a material existence? It is clear that our experiences are a product of our brains based on what we currently know. So, any claim of experiences are still constrained to our physicality. Unless, something to the contrary can be demonstrated to be the case, I don't see any problems with a material perspective of existence - since, it is here and can be studied.
@MyContext It's one of old philosophical thing's exploring the difference between mind and brain subjective vs objective, is your personal experience of say and Apple, the same or different to other people's perception of it ?, this was before magnetic resonance brain scans ect :D
@RevDevilin So, there is no real challenge to the notion other than how people feel about their particular subjective experience of a thing and their desire to claim that that experience should represent the experience of everyone else in some fashion?
If that is the case, it seems like a form of solipsism...
@MyContext The idea of a non-materialistic mind/consciousness emerging from a physical brain kinda thing, if you think say of a giant pink invisible space chicken, is that idea an actual physical material thing ?
Thus you get a philosophical argument over whether it does or doesn't exist :D
Until you get a scientist and a mind reading computer saying you're thinking of a giant pink invisible space chicken :D
@MyContext It's a mixture of pre-existing ideas, that being you are physically restricted in your thinking to what you have experienced, plus genetic memories/reflexes responses,(although many people will reject this because they don't like the idea of being that restricted )
I try to keep up-to-date with the science in certain fields it both fascinates me and scares the bejesus out of me, have a good one :D
@TheCartesianTheist Not really from this point of view, technology will eventually square this circle, and the entirely and purely individual subjective element will disappear, this is inevitable
Try quantum entanglement it's much more fun and up-to-date :D
how does the interaction of immaterial things work? You can't tell me it at all. I can't say it doesn't exist but I can say that there is a lack of proof for it as such that I so far can't say that it exists.
ScorpiaX 4 days ago
@ScorpiaX
The same can be said of many things. That there is such a thing as objective truth is something almost all reasonable people accept and yet how we know of such an immaterial thing is confusing. Same thing with the laws of science. How they affect physical matter is unknown but it does not mean those laws don't have influence. Same with ethical matters and numerous other aspects of life. Same with the scientific proposal that there are 11 dimensions!
TheCartesianTheist 3 days ago
it cannot be what constitutes the reality of experienced space-time. Go fucking chop up your brain or take up heroin, and tell me if you're experiencing space-time or not. And yet everything we claim to make is ultimately a product of entropy itself.
I don't mind other theories of the mind, but think of it this way, if you are going to go paranormal or outside-of-our-understanding idealism, tell me how you're going to explain the world in terms of relevance? I can say X exists or Y exists,
ScorpiaX 4 days ago
@ScorpiaX
cont.
If justice is merely the result of chemicals interacting then why is it that one person's [or the majority chemical interaction] gets to be 'right' and someone else 'wrong'? Surely someone can say that their notion that it's just to torture innocent children is just their own private chemical reaction going on in their body and how dare anybody play at being the 'chemical reaction police'?
TheCartesianTheist 3 days ago
Value and truth are ultimately derived from an impositive system created by the chemical interactions of your brain, someone can rape someone and asked them genuinely if they had fun but not even understand the value of justice, or non-violence. An argument from ignorance, or lack of understanding doesn't support your argument of a God existing at all. Where the f did you get since the brain is a material thing in space-time,
ScorpiaX 4 days ago
@ScorpiaX
If value and truth are merely "chemical interactions" in a physical brain then this raises very serious questions about the objectivity of such things. For one it raises the concern of whether these interactions take place only for my survival benefit. Next, how do material interactions come to have any concern about non-material matters such as truth? How does matter become an authority on something non-material?
TheCartesianTheist 3 days ago
If god is everywhere, then why do you keep on claiming god is transcendental, beyond space and time, beyond logic? If so you already have made a claim that god is non-temporal and non-spatial. This is the essence of one of his arguments.
If I chopped out your brain, took out all your neurons, and sewed your brain together, you can then tell me that I'm completely unimpressed that you're not thinking. In our present day we can do fRMI scans and whatnot of your brain,
ScorpiaX 4 days ago
On a practical, daty-to-day basis, what is the difference between an immaterial god and an imaginary one? By that I mean how would one decide that the FSM, for example, is imaginary and not just immaterial?
rudegar20 2 weeks ago 3
@rudegar20
Not much IF the ONLY attribute of God was immateriality. But God has positive attributes and one of them is that he speaks. Therefore he has communicated with humanity on many differing levels, both propositionally and experientially, and that is what makes the huge difference between the two.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Okay, so god is immaterial and he speaks. I understand how a material agent can speak and be spoken to (vocal chords, ears, brains), but how would an immaterial being do any of those things? In other words, how is it that an immaterial entity interacts with a material one? How is it that you know that god speaks? How would you differentiate between a divine phenomenon and a mundane one like hallucinations and such?
rudegar20 2 weeks ago
@rudegar20
This criticism you make is what we call in philosophy a category error. It's a criticism based on an analogy with something which it is completely different to and more dislike than like. We are not speaking here of some finite being. We are speaking of an omnipotent being. If the immaterial being is omnipotent then it can, of course, quite logically interact with the material. Also keep in mind that science no longer knows what 'material' means thanks to quantum physics.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist I know what a category error is, thank you. But I posited no such criticism, as I only responded to a claim that you made. Namely your knowledge of god's immaterialness and his ability to speak. I asked you how that can be. By saying that omnipotence makes it logical only dodges my question. I also asked how one should differentiate hallucination from revelation. I can see how quantum mechanics redefines 'material,' but It doesn't 'not know.'
rudegar20 2 weeks ago
@rudegar20
I find it hard to believe you know what a category error is if you're willing to come back and do the same thing a second time! I have already explained how the attributes are consistent and make him able to speak. The question of discerning God's voice compared to some illusion is another matter completely. On that matter I think one has to listen to as many voices as one can and then attempt to use logic to discern what makes the most sense of life [broad answer I know].
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist Excuse me, sir, but you, not I, brought up speech, I only responded to your claim. You said that god is immaterial and can speak. Speech is a phenomenon that is very rare and we know but one way it can come about. You said that there is another method, so I asked you how it is that you know that. If you are going to say he speaks because he can (omnipotence), then that is fine, but you have explained and demonstrated nothing.
rudegar20 2 weeks ago
@TheCartesianTheist If you don't have sufficient information logic can sometimes be inaccurate. It happens all the time in Biology and Chemistry (my fields) so many times I have made logical conclusions that had I had more information would not be logical. I think rudegar20 still has a point. HOW is this immaterial being speaking in this material world. At some point he must cause a change in matter, whether that is in neurons or in environmental particle matter. How does that change occur.
daymyth 1 week ago
@daymyth
No doubt the process is not a natural one. You see, the God whom Christians believe in is not a natural one but a supernatual one. But since that being was powerful enough to create ex nihilo I'm sure it's not too much trouble for him to speak in a variety of ways. By the way, we don't even know that God's speech has to take a "material" form anymore since lots of quantum phycisists are now suggesting to us that matter may not actually be what we thought it was.
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
a thought IS physical, it is an electric impulse
117DieHard 1 month ago
Comment removed
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic "Are you aware that color is a physical phenomena?"
Are you aware that modern physics now indicates that we are living in a virtual reality? (this would mean that light of specific wavelengths, brains, atoms etc. are all virtual as well) watch?v=H13_3AjFxRw
BTW I'm in physics, and there is LOTS of evidence for this theory right now -an alarming amount of it in fact (just take a look at that video). If you have evidence to the contrary please post it.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Cite one paper with EVIDENCE that this is a virtual reality. Cite any. Please. We will all wait. And when you cannot, I will point that you are making a well-known philosophical idea that has existed for a thousands years and no one cares. Offer actual evidence in a peer-reviewed paper that points explicitly to a virtual reality. We will all wait while you don't reply.
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@halfLotusMusic Well that's easy enough:
"The emergence of the physical world from information processing" by Brian Whitworth
FYI I have a list of major physicists the length of my arm saying the world is information at bottom. QIT and QG (via the holographic principle and Shannon entropy) all tell us this.
Given what we now know about physics, people who deny it are comparable to creatards.
And no it's not philosophy, information and matter behave measurably differently.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz His paper cites no evidence of his proposition. Only an alternative viewpoint without evidence. I repeat: *Cite a paper with EVIDENCE that points EXPLICITLY towards a virtual reality.*
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic A.)The default position is that reality is virtual since all we see is information. If you want to posit matter you must cough up some evidence.
B.)Materialism can't explain certain experiments: watch?v=6xKUass7G8w
C.)This stuff about "alternative interpretations" is silly -physics didn't magically align so that it LOOKS like the world is virtual. You might also say that fossils were planted to test our faith.
D.)If you want it more explictly read Smolins 3 Roads.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Hahahahah. You are hilarious. You cite the double slit experiment as if that interpretation is demonstrably superior. Again, I posit the following: You have no evidence that EXPLICITLY points to virtual reality. You have interpretations of the same data except yours in untestable. That isn't science. That is philosophy. Stop pretending you have anything beyond an opinion this issue. One that has existed for thousands of years, infact. No one cares.
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic "double slit experiment"
You didn't watch it then. I cited the delayed choice quantum eraser. The double-slit experiment is only the first part.
"EXPLICITLY"
Sure I do. A particle couldn't possibly have shown up after the film was pulled back if materialism is correct.
"untestable"
I just pointed out where it is tested. Yours isn't however. You haven't produced a shred of evidence that matter actually exists behind our observations. Stop being a retard.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic
"Are you aware that color is a physical phenomena?"
That's a very vague statement. Of course it is, IN THE SENSE, that a wave is required for sensing the colour. However, the COLOUR ITSELF is not a physical phenomena in the sense that the wave has a colour or that if I cut open the brain there are colours in there. Colour is the subjective experience of the objective wave. Therefore your rash conclusion is shown to be exactly that.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Are you aware that color, scientifically, is defined by wavelength and not by what a person sees? Calling light "red" is like calling it "UV." We can't see UV light, so we don't have a color *perception* for them, but bees do. So is your argument that *perception* of color is subjective and, outside of what "evidentialism" can explain? Look forward to your answer!
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic
"Are you aware that color, scientifically, is defined by wavelength and not by what a person sees?"
Since I'd just made that clear in my last post to you I find it odd you ask?!
I never said it was "outside of what 'evidentialism' can explain" did I? In fact that view would contradict my last post as well. I suggest you start reading my posts and watching my videos with a lot more careful consideration instead of jumping to false conclusions.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Do you understand the difference I am trying to make in your mind? Color *is* an objective physical phenomena. Perception of color isn't an objective physical phenomena. I am asking for for you to recognize why those two are completely different. When one argues as an adult, they do not concern themselves with the next point until the prior one is established. Also, you seem incapable of thinking without insults. Are you concerned about something?
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic
Look at your first comment for the tone being set on 'insults' and then think about your own psychological projection.
"Color *is* an objective physical phenomena."
I fear you are equivocating. Therefore - define 'colour' please.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist I am not equivocating. You simply fail to respect scientific definitions. Colors are defined by a set of wavelengths of light. Just as with UV, microwaves, or any other form. The perception of color is the subjective experience for which one may use the term colloquially, but it is important recognize that if you are trying to be correct *precision* is important.
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic I feel the need to interject with an analogy.
My best freind through university had colour defiency: he perceived what we see as red and blue as indistinguishable (and it made no sense to ask if red was blue or vice versa) but saw the rest of the visible light spectrum as we do (eg green vs orange). Colour, as you define it, is simply what the majority of people witness, but it is not the objective reality for there are those who witness different results with the same object.
AMWOODco 1 month ago
@AMWOODco 1) That isn't an analogy. 2) That is a colloquial definition of color, not the scientific one. 3) I can't see blues from purples, so I don't need a pretend story, as if that is informative. 4) Color is *not* subjective. Colors are defined by a set of wavelengths. 5) The *perception* of color is subjective.
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic I must say that number 3 of your comments seems to be rather insulting to me. I did not make up a 'pretend story', it is the actual case that my friend is unable to differentiate red from blue. On what grounds do you accuse me of lying?
AMWOODco 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic That perception of colour is what colour is, since colour is an attribute of the visible wavelength of light perceived by a sensible being, and thus described by the being, and eventually polemicised over by sciolists. UV and microwaves etc. are not colours per se,
Lepsaeus 1 month ago
@Lepsaeus What you are describing provides evidence of that you are refusing all basics facts of science you do not understand. You may say that colors were first *discovered* by what we saw, but that changes nothing. Blue light is a specific range of wavelengths. You can look it up. If you were scientifically literate you would realize colors have ceased to be "what you see" for decades. Your refusal to update your knowledge suggests why you misunderstand other scientific data
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic I don't know what alternative scientific literature you concern yourself with, and why you refuse to enlighten us with. But, in essence colour is: Aspect of any object that may be described in terms of hue, brightness, and saturation. It is associated with the visible wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, which stimulate the sensor cells of the eye. Encyclopædia Britannica And, yes, a recipient is prerequisite; otherwise.. we have 450-495 nm of wavelength.
Lepsaeus 1 month ago
I did not say that there was not a **colloquial** definition. And look! You can read a layman's reference tool. And then you can also see the **scientific** definition of light. Wow. Furthermore, I am only pointing out 1) your natural resistance to accepting an imprecise understanding and 2) your belligerence over basic facts. What evidence do you have that a recipient is required? Simply show the data.
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic The fact is that this is not a colloquial definition, (regardless of your nugatory attempts at relabelling it ) it is the definition in essence. I am not the one who owes someone any data or evidence in the situation. "I am only pointing out 1) your natural resistance to accepting an imprecise understanding" Thanks, that's a compliment. My alleged belligerence over basic facts make me wonder what those facts were after all.
I saw you, and am done with you.
Lepsaeus 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic "What evidence do you have that a recipient is required?"
That was shown by Alain Aspect in 2007: watch?v=8AS9weqr-yw
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz It is the double slit experiment, I hope you realize. Modified to examine a particular phenomena, but it asks the same questions. You are positing that the only explanation for the fact that a detection of a particle pattern at D0 pre-empts the point at which we could "know" that we will know. It was is QUITE interesting, sure, but that does not point to virtual over material until we can say it is not explicable by material phenomena, which he don't know yet.
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic The modified form of it shows something the regular form can't though.
"until we can say it is not explicable by material phenomena, which he don't know yet."
The only way that's possible is if signals can go in excess of c, which relativity says is impossible.
You seem hesitant about the conclusion, but this stuff shows up all over the place. Watch this and tell me if you really think material reality is the better explanation: watch?v=0qiLLrmyqTM
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
Rather than say "it must exceed the speed of light," I would rather suggest that that is more likely one of our 'facts' of is misunderstood or outright wrong. Quantum entanglement may not be understood mechanistically, but the majority of theorists feel there is a long way to travel before declaring it a virtual world. Furthermore, I don't care about your home movies. I return to my statement, yours is one interpretation, a philosophical one. It isn't even particularly new.
halfLotusMusic 1 month ago
@halfLotusMusic "more likely one of our 'facts' of is misunderstood or outright wrong."
We do, said "fact" is that matter exists. This becomes more obvious when we get into quantum gravity and the holographic principle and the theory becomes necessarily formulated in terms of information rather than matter.
"majority of theorists feel"
You're sure? Because I can list off a whole lot of big names that agree.
"yours is one interpretation"
Yes but it's by far the simpler one.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
You are effectively falling into the solipsistic trap of making everything meaningless.
We MUST assume that what our senses (and the readings from the sensors that we build) are real. At least the ones that are verifiable by other people, otherwise we can trust nothing, including our own senses.
If there are other realms that are not detectable by us then they are immaterial, but in the sense of the word that they don't matter.
If they are detectable, however, then they must be material.
St00sh13 3 weeks ago
@St00sh13
You basically did complete circular reasoning there.
We "MUST" assume the senses are real because "otherwise we can trust nothing, including our own sense"? Yea that's not a very convincing argument.
"If they are detectable, however, then they must be material." Why? Is this a true logical conclusion or one made from expected experience based on past results (aka the Fallacy of Induction)?
UncannyRicardo 3 weeks ago
@MyContext
UncannyRicardo actually gave better clarity than I did, I didn't notice his response.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@MyContext
Still no contradiction, if God is making the claim he is anywhere or somewhere it doesn't take away from his omnipresence, (analogy for clarity) just as the Universe is still the Universe in terms of being everywhere if someone claims Florida is in the Universe. Or the Florida is a part of the Universe. No contradiction
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
02.53 But the CONTENT of many of my thoughts can be detected by my five senses; and it isn't at all obvious to me why the unobservable CONTENT, that cannot, provides an immediate problem for materialism? Oh, and why are we shouting the word "CONTENT"?
wisdominnature7 2 months ago
@MyContext
This is same illogical assertion that many atheists state such as: "if God is perfect, why aren't we perfectly made"
This is just absurd, as you are stating that God shouldn't create ANYTHING but himself.
Hence there is no contradiction of omnipresence.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@MyContext
Is the OA valid? If so then you still have to deny a premise. Parodies literally do nothing to undermine a valid argument. The problem with parodies is not that they are invalid. Its that they are unsound especially since their proponents know "islands" and "unicorns" are absurdities. God is a legitimate question.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
Atheist's idea of existence isn't anything like wikipedia's. Israel leads the world in science, they are #4. I've written just that Israel leads the world in science and have been called a liar because some atheist thought the word lead is interchangeable with the idea that they are #1. 17 definitions for the word lead on Word Monkey Dictionary (my favorite) andn not one of them means to be #1. Israel IS #1 in stem cell research last I checked. Love should be the goal of writing.
shizzleman8 2 months ago
*browsing through the comments* Wow, everyone's jumping on the absolute idealism bandwagon. I wonder why? Lord knows that I still don't fully understand it. Trying to get through the words of I Am The Walrus still gives me headaches (then again, many songs by the Beatles give me headaches when I try to understand the words).
AMWOODco 2 months ago
What I find in much of the discussion on the net about ideas is the lack of humility and not a lot of modeling a capacity for learning. People seem to hold positions... Yet we are actors in the world. Honesty demands that we wrestle with the results of what we hold to... Thank you for this video... Materialism ... as a world view completely failed my family on multiple levels.
jaw1LA 2 months ago
so is materialism btw, to which objectivism subscribes.
TheFunkyTheist 2 months ago
This might sound mean, but objectivism is retarded. Case closed.
TheFunkyTheist 2 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist What makes it retarded?
MyContext 2 months ago
I think that our true reality is ungraspable in this form, even with our thoughts and senses. It could be possible that this world is mere illusion or distortion that we cannot fully comprehend. That and the atoms that make up this universe are mostly empty, so there must be something grander beyond us that is the true form of reality but I have no clue what it is.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
CartesianTheist, this video is not one of your best. I believe that your understanding of materialism is limited, and that you would benefit from reading some of the more intelligent materialists. A careful, or even cursory, reading of Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" (available online) would challenge your view of the "essence" of materialism.
StupidTheist 2 months ago
@StupidTheist
I notice you don't go into any details at all of how this video is mistaken? Care to?
I did also go out of my way to make it clear that I was INTRODUCING the first part of a series in which I am going to go into greater detail on some of these theories. I seriously doubt that reading Lenin would change my view of materialism especially since he's writing before quantum physics took off. Still - you could make a video on his materialism and why it should be heard?
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist To begin, you wrote "Materialism in philosophy, is the view that everything which exists is composed of matter." While undoubtedly there are materialists who subscribe to this view, especially among the philosophically naive, that view is nowhere to be found in Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, etc. and is contradicted by numerous direct statements by these authors, as well as being opposed by the body of their work.
StupidTheist 2 months ago
@StupidTheist
Exactly. And that is why you are criticising me for doing something I never did! If you read the blurb under my video you might just begin to understand that.
There is, by the way, nothing stopping you from making a video about these forms of materialism and posting it as a response to my video. If you do that I go on the record promising you I will accept it. Not only that but I will attempt to interact with it as well.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist You are confusing me. What I have criticized is your statement that "Materialism in philosophy, is the view that everything which exists is composed of matter." You now say that I am criticizing you for doing something you never did! That makes no sense to me. I don't see what in the blurb would make me understand that you didn't do (what exactly?) that I have criticized. Clarification would be appreciated.
StupidTheist 2 months ago
@StupidTheist @TheCartesianTheist Have you two seen Robert Redford's movie A River Runs Through It? "And being a Scot... believed that the art of writing lay in thrift".
Points well received come in small packages. Define your terms, simply.
shizzleman8 2 months ago
@shizzleman8
I'd be interested to see both clarify their positions on materialism, because it looks to be an intriguing topic
JCrownwell 2 months ago
@JCrownwell They both started off on opposite sides of the field and have different coaches. The stupid theist began with a personal attack saying this wasn't CT's best effort. I think CT's videos are all extremely clear and he asked ST to name a specific. "Philosophy of Materialism". When you have different coaches they're going to have different views with different plays in their book etc. Our objective especially on Christmas shouldn't be winning, it should be kindness. Yes, intriguing
shizzleman8 2 months ago
Comment removed
StupidTheist 2 months ago
Comment removed
StupidTheist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JCrownwell @shizzleman8 As suggested by Cartesian Theist, I made a video and added it to my channel.
StupidTheist 2 months ago
Christian god claims logically fall apart as presented by the bible given what is currently known. Generic claims of god are vacuous and are therefore meaningless.
So, regardless of how poor our understanding of various things maybe, our basis for the claims of any god is actually poorer, since, if one claims that are current level of knowing anything is bad, doesn't it get worse when extrapolations must be made on the ignorance to make any claim of any god?
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
So basically what your saying is:
Humans have a poor understanding of various things, and our current level of knowing anything is bad.
Therefore Atheism is true
^invalid, argument^
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist Any claim of atheism is predicted on the claim of theism. There is no support for theism so both claims are meaningless. It's like claiming that someone believes in the mythological unicorn and the another lacks belief in the unicorn, given the base, the positions are pointless. So, without support for the claim of god, the argument about god is an argument over imaginary constructs. Since, anything could be considered with nothing to decide anything.
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
Unnicorns and God are not analogous, way to expose your Dawkinite attitude, but if you wish to give me reasons on why a Unicorn can create the Universe, please list the attributes of the Unicorn. I'd like to see your philosophical credentials.
Lack of belief, disbelief, rejection, pan-theism, I hear many definitions of atheism from different atheists, but I can never tell what type of atheist I'm bumping into, so you all need to get together and clear this up.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist The reason that I claim then to be analogous is that one can (and people do) make many claims about each, however, without something to to substantiate the claim - where is the basis to claim either real? What can say any god claim is right? What can say any god claim is wrong? If there is no basis to make any adjudication, where is the basis to consider it real? What basis is there to claim anything?
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
if YOU the atheist asserts "it is possible that God does not exist" is that not the same as saying God is impossible? Unless you are speaking of epistemic possibility in which case you can't get to their conclusion since God may nevertheless be possible. But if the former, then YOU still have to show that the concept of God is incoherent and, at that point, they can just deny that God is possible without the parody.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist The Abrahamic claims of God ARE incoherent. The generic claims of god are up for debate.
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
The Ontological argument (Modal Perfection Argument) is what you need to learn. That's how you tell which God claims are right and which is wrong.
Theism stands or falls with God's necessity or His impossibility. It's that simple
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
Comment removed
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MyContext
"doesn't it get worse when extrapolations must be made on the ignorance to make any claim of any god?"
Wrong, as Anselm's concept of God is still used today. Anselm used this concept around 1000 years ago. Therefore your claim is meaningless.
Just because you say Christian God claims fall apart presented by the bible given what is currently known, doesn't mean Christian God claims fall apart when presented by the bible. this is not an argument...
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist Does it ever strike you as strange that one must create concepts for there to be anything at all to say about any god? However, where is the backing for any of these concepts other than the imagination? And if it is only based in the imagination, where is there any basis to claim it real?
MyContext 2 months ago
Comment removed
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist Which god concept are you using? There are so many! I was referring to the bible for the particular depiction that I was giving. However, I will review other claims as well... have another notion in mind? Since, they are all equally supported, at least those that have been presented to me...which is to say...there is no support...
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
There is plenty of support if you understand proper philosophy. Maximally excellent being = being who is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in some possible world W; Maximally great being = being who is maximally excellent in every possible world
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@MyContext
Moreover: q = a perfect being exists
1. q⊃◻q 2. ◻q∨~◻q 3. ~◻q ⊃ ◻~◻q 4. ◻q ∨ ◻~◻q 5. ◻~◻q ⊃ ◻~q 6. ◻q∨◻~q 7. ~◻~q 8. ◻q 9. ◻q⊃q 10. q
Refute.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist The contradictions presented were from the bible, should I use another reference for your notion of god? Please tell me what contradiction have I made, since, I referenced no person, but the claims of the bible...which said nothing about anyone seeing god in this passage, just a claim of what god did...which is what constitutes the contradiction at least as it is presented. I guess one could claim that the bible presents things badly - not perfect eh?
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
The Contradiction is to show an imperfect being, in which you didn't do anything at all.
When you say the bible presents things badly and not perfect you are using a "subjective" opinion as how can you MYcontext understand what "perfect" actually is?
An Imperfect being complaining about a Perfect being does not magically make the perfect being imperfect.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist I didn't complain about any being. I spoke of the depiction of a being as being contradictory, since, there is no basis to claim a being. I spoke of the bible as being imperfect given all the contradictions that it contains.
MyContext 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MyContext There are no contradictions.
TheLawGiver42 2 months ago
@MyContext
Here is the support:
1.◊p → ¬[◊p • ◊ ¬p] 2.◊p 3. ∴ ¬[◊p • ◊ ¬p] 4. (◊p • ¬[◊p • ◊ ¬p]) → ☐p 5. (◊p • ¬[◊p • ◊ ¬p]) 6. ☐p 7. ☐p → ☐g 8. ∴ ☐g
refute
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist Can't make a claim with regards to your proof. However, it will ask one question before I learn the required material to actually evaluate your proof claims.
Question: What is the basis by which the proof is derived? Since, the proof (whatever the proof is claimed to be a proof of) would need to address the scope of claims made, which are inherent in whatever the proof is derived from and/or supporting.
MyContext 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist You should be aware of the logical issues in the bible with claims of God. I will give a simple one... God is claimed to be everywhere, however, in the tower of babel story, god is claimed to come down to see them building the tower.
1) If one is truly everywhere, there is no where one can go.
2) if one knows everything, why would there be a claim of coming down to see anything.
There are many other areas where the bible tells you it is a story.
MyContext 2 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
Physics has already debunked materialism anyway. It will just take a while for all of the atomist chowderheads to catch up with digital physics.
"existence is by definition the presence of some sort of objectively detectable matter..."
What a moron! I could hammer this statement to pieces with my knowledge of physics.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago 8
thanks for the video, this gives me much to think about and to explore. God Bless.
MrItchyElbow 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist
hehe excellent, I might get it as well!!
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist
No I've not seen that. I'm off to Amazon now though!!
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
question...has this molyneaux guy really studied philosophy?or just read some books on stuff?
dopplerking91 2 months ago
@dopplerking91
Well - he claims that he has a post-graduate degree in it. It's quite possible since I think his thesis was on political philosophy. This means he may well know next to nothing on the philosophy of religion. However, I am not alone in being extremely unimpressed with his brand of philosophical atheism which appears as naive as Objectivism.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago 5
@TheCartesianTheist oh ok. well i asked because i looked through his videos and pretty much all of them seemed like he picked up a coffee table version of religious philosophy in 90 minutes or less. it just seemed, at least to me, that he wasnt really trying to understand opposing arguments or the actual root of it, but rather learning only things that bolstered his own preconceived beliefs. also noticed peacock feathers and such "look at how smart i am.i make videos 'proving' God doesnt exist."
dopplerking91 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist Have you thought of ripping Dhorpatan a new one about his objectivism?
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCartesianTheist Nice video!
"appears as naive as Objectivism"
I believe the reason for this is that he has actually been influenced by Objectivism. I suspect he is going to absolutely HATE the digital physics (Wheeler's "It from bit." revolution). Of course I have known several Objectivists famous and otherwise to sometimes openly attack modern physics for not conforming to Rand's philosophy.
The "machine" is actually thoughts inside of a Ghost! lol
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
I'm not sure if I would entirely agree with absolute idealism, but I would say that we exist within God's reality.
FillTheirVoid 2 months ago
Question. Can anyone even give me a definition. Just what in good glory's name is material anyway?
hippo11222 2 months ago
@hippo11222
Ask an honest physicist and the answer is "We really don't know yet!" That's why the atheist who uses materialism dogmatically to argue againt God is really saying:
"Something which I don't know what it is is the only thing which exists and nothing else can exist in any way whatsoever!"
And yet the theist is the one making the bold claims apparently?!? Nice to hear from you hippo!
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
YES, YES!!! This is my favorite subject in philosophy, thanks for making a video talking about this stuff CT.
Every one of those theories has a chance........LIES, I put all my money on Absolute Idealism!
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
one could forgive it if one or two atheists out of the whole bunch would admit and show there are more philosophies about the natural world than materialism. but because they don't it shows that they reek of agenda, and either atheism is a very ignorant world view, or most atheists are intellectually dishonest.
it is good that you make these videos to counter their arguments, or some people could be deceived by them.
aaugoaa 2 months ago
Awesome video -- I always love your work! =)
Your statements about colors touch on what's known as "The Argument from Qualia."
I'm making a study of this argument, and I thought that you might also be interested in it. I'm eventually going to produce a video that includes the Argument from Qualia, but I need to become more familiar with it first.
Have you read anything about this argument?
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne
Thanks. Yes. I thought about using the term but was going to introduce it in the next video. There are some interesting interviews about qualia on the 'Closer to Truth' videos. That would be a good place to go if you haven't already.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist Awesome, thanks -- I will check it out!
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
The materialist is also engaging in blatant circular reasoning, which is a classic logical fallacy that even an infant could see through:
1. Materialism is correct. Therefore::
2. Nothing exists outside the material universe. Therefore:
3. Materialism is correct.
The above statements are unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and materialism is therefore rejected as false, irrational, unscientific, illogical hogwash.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne ??? The claim of material is based on what appear to be material. Granted the "nature" of the material may well be questionable, however, by what means does one claim that it isn't present? All of what we understand seems to be predicated on a material basis - whatever that notion actually consists of. So, are you suggesting that the stuff that we could material is non-existent?
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
Spoken like a true apostle of bible belt theology with atheistic hermeneutics
1) The Bible wasn't written by God, therefore human interpretations = so other humans can understand. This is a terrible objection
2) Omniscience doesn't imply One cannot still make claims of what God is doing. You seem to put your own restraints on what God can and cannot do, as a human I question where you get this credibility? I see no contradiction you need to work harder
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist "...Bible wasn't written by God, therefore human interpretations..." I am aware of that fact. Given the depictions, it is clearly a fiction created by the notions of what "must be" at the time. However, the claims are baseless and the text demonstrates how incoherent the claims actually are.
You see no contradiction? If I said that I know EVERYTHING and then asked you to take a test, wouldn't you think I lied about knowing EVERYTHING?
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext If I were in fact EVERYWHERE, wouldn't it be a contradiction to suggest that it is even possible for me to go ANYWHERE. Since, if I could actually go ANYWHERE it is clear that I wasn't actually everywhere. Are you suggesting that this is NOT a contradiction? Please explain how it is not a contradiction...if you still think there is no contradiction.
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
More reasons on why this is a terrible argument.
God is omnipresent, if someone sees God that doesn't imply he is not omnipresent. God is omniscient and knows everything, but now you are stating that God doesn't have many options due to this omniscience. So you limit God's options. You are claiming an omniscient being cannot make a claim of coming down to see anything (building the tower).
This is absolute nonsense, how exactly does that imply that God is not omniscient?
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist I am claiming that the ANY statement of an omnipresent omniscient being going ANYWHERE or having to do ANYTHING to see anything is a contradiction to the attributes claimed. So, yes the claim could be made, however, it also entails a contradiction, which suggests a lie or a misrepresentation, however, it cannot be said to be okay.
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
There is no contradiction, L2Theology
Omnipotence doesn't have the problem. neither does Omnipresent, One can still be ANYWHERE and claim to be Somewhere. You are creating your own criteria on HOW an Omnipresent being SHOULD act.
If God is omnipresent and claims to be somewhere he still can be EVERYWHERE at the same time. hence there is no contradiction at all. L2Ontological Argument
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist I agree...god as depicted could claim to be anywhere, however, that is the contradiction. It can't claim to GO anywhere. Since, the implication is that it is NOT already there.
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext I left out not ...in first sentence... So not the contradiction...
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
Not really, as it depends on how one wishes to take it.
Someone saying "god will go with you" doesn't make any contradiction at all given the language game that the statement is being used. As that statement can be the same as "god will never leave you".
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
@UncannyRicardo No argument, however, that was not the context in which that statement was used. Check out the Tower of Babel story - it is short with lots of problems.
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
Nah im not into looking into those ancient stories.
If that was not the context, then what was?
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
@UncannyRicardo Genesis 11:5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.
Linguistically, the construction of this sentence is in conflict with the idea of actually being everywhere. It is also in conflict with the idea of being all knowing.
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext
No I don't see any logical conflict. All I see is that that statement appears to imply God payed attention to the Tower that was being built.
However this is not what I thought you were discussing. I only responded to your claim "god as depicted could claim to be anywhere, however, that is the contradiction. It can't claim to GO anywhere." , which I stated is not logically contradictory depending on the usage of the words.
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
A materialist is like a man who places a camera inside a sealed box, takes pictures of the inside of the box, and concludes that nothing could possibly outside the box, based solely on the fact that his own limited and flawed system doesn't take pictures anywhere but inside the box.
In short, the materialist is extremely stupid.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Oops -- should read "...that nothing could possibly exist outside the box...."
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
3:54
Ebla from E.S. Posthumus! Awesome!
MrFaceofinsanity01 2 months ago
Awesome video! I facepalmed when I heard the guy at 1:21; that has to be the most stupid reasoning I've heard!
Btw, what is the name of the song? Loved the music!
TheisticThinker 2 months ago
Colour is a bad analogy a proton is a material object your eyes your brain are also material things, perception itself is a physical process neurons electrons and so on
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin Perception is not material -- who is the perceiver? The body? The brain? No, neither one can perceive -- they are composed of inert matter, and inert matter cannot perceive anything. All the same chemicals and structures are present in a dead body and brain, but no perception takes place there because the soul is no longer present.
Perception is a spiritual process (the soul), not a material one. If it were material, then brains in dead bodies would also perceive, but they do not.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne "who is the perceiver? The body? The brain?" yes it's the same thing-ish as one influences the other and vice versa,can dead organic material still perceive, nope but living organic material can, and the state of perception can be altered dramatically, via drugs magnetic fields inserting electrodes and computer chips into your brain and so on, and damage to your brain can also alter your perception, this is all well-documented
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin
Changing the physical body/brain changes perception because the mind (perciever) uses that body as its base of perception, however that doesn't change the fact (like CT said) that the senses of sound, quality, etc... are not physical. Thus they aren't founded on a material cause.
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
@UncannyRicardo Although your perception can be changed physically external and internally, it's all material
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin
Again no, the way someone percieves may be altered due to physical causes in the body/mind. The qualities that we experience (especially for Berkeley) are all mental/immaterial. Thus ultimately perception is a completely subjective intangible phenomena.
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
@UncannyRicardo Ish serious progress is being made in mapping thought patterns, the real key is understanding the operating language that the brain uses, and some serious money is being spent to crack this problem, ie the uniquely subjective bit will disappear in the future, it is not a "intangible phenomena" it's just physics
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin
No not really, since none of the phenomena is in physics yet anyway. Even other qualities like shapes, space, texture, etc... which appear to be tangible are really only mind subjective as well as shown by the views of Berkeley and other idealistic thinkers.
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UncannyRicardo Berkeley funny google "Scientists Reconstruct Brains’ Visions Into Digital Video In Historic Experiment" when it becomes repeatable it is no longer a "intangible phenomena" it's just physics, which is what our mind's are thought patterns that can be read, the magic has gone replaced by hard cold technology, there is still some magic out there, but it's not here (the mind) any-more
RevDevilin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevDevilin
" when it becomes repeatable it is no longer a "intangible phenomena" " Sorry but nope, neuroscience wont help you much here. Infact the brain has little to nothing to do with the idealistic views themselves, since they are more focused on all of reality rather than just the mind.
The rather unabsolute "structure" of all the types of sensation (primary and secondary) pretty much makes any non rationalistic "proofs" irrelevent or without actual support.
UncannyRicardo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RevDevilin "Although your perception can be changed physically external and internally, it's all material"
Actually it's not. I studied physics, and from what I've learned it's all informational deep down:
watch?v=6xKUass7G8w
watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww
"There is no spoon."
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz It's all energy fields, but this is what we call matter
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin Well it's actually all reducible to quantum information, but yes, the matter reduces to the energy fields along the way.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne
How do you know, that "brains in dead bodies" don't perceive?
DoktorSigmundFreud 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DoktorSigmundFreud
"How do you know, that "brains in dead bodies" don't perceive?"
Ah that's right, naturalists believe that out of unconscious matter, consciousness comes. It is very hard to argue against that type of faith.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@DoktorSigmundFreud I don't it's a presumption based upon electrical activity within the mind, when the stops it is presumed you are dead, how do you know your awake ? :D
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin
It's not a bad example since a proton is not the colour we experience! The colour itself is not actually physically present in any part of the atom. That is the point.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist Ops did I say proton, talk type does have its drawbacks, photon
The colour we experience is entirely based upon matter, or energy fields to be more precise, it is entirely manipulable as is your perception ie damage the correct part of brain and your perception will change, the perception of colour is done via the wavelength of the light and its interaction with your nervous system
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin
Exactly my point still. It is based upon some physical interaction taking place and yet it is still more than the physical interaction as described by the science. However science can describe it - it is always more than what it actually is to my subjective experience. Thus the problem of qualia is regarded as a serious problem for strict materialism.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist @RevDevilin Why would any particular subjective experience be a challenge to a material existence? It is clear that our experiences are a product of our brains based on what we currently know. So, any claim of experiences are still constrained to our physicality. Unless, something to the contrary can be demonstrated to be the case, I don't see any problems with a material perspective of existence - since, it is here and can be studied.
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext It's one of old philosophical thing's exploring the difference between mind and brain subjective vs objective, is your personal experience of say and Apple, the same or different to other people's perception of it ?, this was before magnetic resonance brain scans ect :D
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin So, there is no real challenge to the notion other than how people feel about their particular subjective experience of a thing and their desire to claim that that experience should represent the experience of everyone else in some fashion?
If that is the case, it seems like a form of solipsism...
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext The idea of a non-materialistic mind/consciousness emerging from a physical brain kinda thing, if you think say of a giant pink invisible space chicken, is that idea an actual physical material thing ?
Thus you get a philosophical argument over whether it does or doesn't exist :D
Until you get a scientist and a mind reading computer saying you're thinking of a giant pink invisible space chicken :D
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin All manner of imaginary constructs poofed into existence, eh? :>
MyContext 2 months ago
@MyContext It's a mixture of pre-existing ideas, that being you are physically restricted in your thinking to what you have experienced, plus genetic memories/reflexes responses,(although many people will reject this because they don't like the idea of being that restricted )
I try to keep up-to-date with the science in certain fields it both fascinates me and scares the bejesus out of me, have a good one :D
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin Imagination = no restrictions. What we believe we can do, we can do.
Don't be scared. Me and Your Heart, One and the same.
shizzleman8 2 months ago
Comment removed
RevDevilin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCartesianTheist Not really from this point of view, technology will eventually square this circle, and the entirely and purely individual subjective element will disappear, this is inevitable
Try quantum entanglement it's much more fun and up-to-date :D
RevDevilin 2 months ago
Comment removed
JohananRaatz 2 months ago