"A watch just doesn't assemble itself."

[Iamme]

Quoted from last nights TBN religious cable network program.

We have all heard of this remark I am sure. But, like me,..don't
you suppose that the assembly of a watch by itself is not quite the same as starting with the simplest ingredients of life, and having it slowly undergo changes based on survival, adaptation, etc.?

Or, IS this a valid comparison: To claim that having a universe and earth to work like the machine that they do, and to have all the 'bounty' that this earth has...that it had to be done by a 'watchmaker'...or God, if you will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When possoms are playing possum...they are not "playing"(dead). They actually pass out from sheer terror.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by Iamme

When possoms are playing possum...they are not "playing"(dead). They actually pass out from sheer terror.

Studies show that possoms who are "playing dead" have heart rates and brain waves indistinguishable from an awake possom.

(According to http://home.sou.edu/~rible/wildlife/opposum.htm)

Where did you hear otherwise?

Eric

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Iamme
Quoted from last nights TBN religious cable network program.

We have all heard of this remark I am sure. But, like me,..don't
you suppose that the assembly of a watch by itself is not quite the same as starting with the simplest ingredients of life, and having it slowly undergo changes based on survival, adaptation, etc.?

Or, IS this a valid comparison: To claim that having a universe and earth to work like the machine that they do, and to have all the 'bounty' that this earth has...that it had to be done by a 'watchmaker'...or God, if you will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When possoms are playing possum...they are not "playing"(dead). They actually pass out from sheer terror.
Someone should write a
book on this question. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393315703/qid=1064272903/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-3285570-2265567)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iamme
Quoted from last nights TBN religious cable network program.

We have all heard of this remark I am sure. But, like me,..don't
you suppose that the assembly of a watch by itself is not quite the same as starting with the simplest ingredients of life, and having it slowly undergo changes based on survival, adaptation, etc.?

Or, IS this a valid comparison: To claim that having a universe and earth to work like the machine that they do, and to have all the 'bounty' that this earth has...that it had to be done by a 'watchmaker'...or God, if you will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When possoms are playing possum...they are not "playing"(dead). They actually pass out from sheer terror.

The problem with the "A watch just doesn't assemble itself” or intelligent design position is that it is self defeating.

The idea that anything so complex needs to be designed/created by something more complex.

When you as well God must be so very complex to have designed the complexity of life here, the response is “oh yes”.

When you point out the creator of their creator would have to be even more complex and soon it runs back and back a creator always needing a creator.

The response will then come “ well everything But God needs a creator because he has just always been”.

You say well why if god can just always exists how can not a place i.e. the universe.

The response will be, “a place, a realm of existence would also need to be created.”

When you then point our or ask, if a place or realm of existence needs to be created before it can support the existence of anything then who created the realm of existence where God lived before he created the universe.

The response “ he did”.

You ask where did he live before he created that realm of existence, ? It seems there has to be more then just God that always existed as “he” had to dwell somewhere.



There will be some silence. Then will come “ well he lives out side of time and space”.

You will respond well that is still a realm of existence, who created it for him? He could not have as he would have to been somewhere before it was created……

At this point anger arises and you know the rest.

[pupdog]

The major problem with the watch question is that 2 watches don't come together and make a whole bunch of little watches. Besides, a "watch" was chosen for the argument because everyone knows that people design and make watches. Perhaps the correct conclusion to be drawn should be "Because watches are created by people, and they're pretty complicated things, then plants and animals, which are also complicated things, must have been created by people."

[RichardR]

The premise is that life on Earth is complex and ordered – like a watch. We all know the watch was designed, so life must have been designed, right? Wrong. It's a false analogy. In fact, it's so false it's actually is a good analogy for confirming evolution: it is obvious the watch was designed but it is equally obvious life on Earth wasn't. Consider this:

1. If you observe living creatures for long enough, you will eventually see them reproduce – young come out of their bodies and are alive. These young can be seen to be carrying some of the characteristics of their parents. We therefore know that life is capable of reproduction. On the other hand, you can observe your watch from now to the end of time (pun intended), and it won't do anything except maybe rust. It will never bear offspring. So false analogy from the creationists.

2. If you take a watch apart you will see that it has been designed. Everything has a purpose, every spring, wheel and lever; you will not find that 95% of the cogs and wheels do nothing. However, take apart a human being in the same way and you will find that most of our DNA is junk. Remnants of our evolutionary ancestors that are still in our genes. It would be the equivalent of opening up your watch and finding that it's made up of old bicycles, spare tires, pieces of heating systems etc. with only a small part of the machinery actually doing anything. So false analogy again from the creationists.

But there is more. Our watch is likely to be well designed. It works like, well, clockwork. But if we were designed it was clearly a bad design. For example, humans frequently have back problems that are directly related to our evolutionary past where we walked on all fours. Evolution has allowed us to walk upright but as we were not designed for that, our spines can't always cope. Where in the watch are the components that don't quite work properly? False analogy again.

Evolution did not have an end purpose in mind. A watch was designed from the outset to be a watch, but earlier versions of life in the evolutionary cycle were never planned to be human beings. This is the key point the cretinists and IDiots don't get. It is clear that we were not perfectly designed like the watch – the creationists' analogy works against them, but they don't understand their subject well enough to see it.

3. The analogy tries to conclude that we were designed. That includes (presumably), watchmakers. So the watchmaker of the fable must have been designed. So, for the analogy to hold, the designer must also have been designed. And that designer must have been designed, and that designer also must have.. (you get the picture). So we have an endless stream of designers. Well, it's their analogy, if it turns on them it's hardly our fault.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Iamme
Or, IS this a valid comparison: To claim that having a universe and earth to work like the machine that they do, and to have all the 'bounty' that this earth has...that it had to be done by a 'watchmaker'...or God, if you will.

The watch does not assemble itself, it is spontaneously generated by a process that takes billions of years. :p

[Marquis de Carabas]

We all have experience with numerous watches, which enables us to generalise about them. In this case, we specifically generalise that this watch had a maker, because all the other ones we know of did, and we have knowledge of only one way in which a watch can come to exist.

We have experience, however, with only one universe, which doesn't allow for us to generalise about them. Not only can we not compare this one to other universes, we do not even have knowledge of what way a universe comes into existence (some interesting theories, to be sure, but that's not the same thing).

[Marquis de Carabas]

heh '...specifically generalise...' I should edit that out, but I'll leave it in that I may be appropriately flamed for it. Just be gentle, please :D

[evildave]

And as we all know, people are made of tiny watch gears that all go "tick-tick-tick".

[c4ts]

Originally posted by evildave
And as we all know, people are made of tiny watch gears that all go "tick-tick-tick".

Yes but nowadays people are digital and run on tiny batteries.

Ah, the good ol' Christian method of unconsciously confusing nature with artifice. Remember when Musleman made the same mistake?

[dmarker]

Kind of interesting to note that clocks and watches have evolved themselves. :D


http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/time.html

[Yahweh]

"A watch just doesn't assemble itself."
This is usually a very poor example of "The world is so complex, it could have ONLY been designed by God". Dont take this analogy (the premises and conclusions behind it are simply conditional by the way) with any seriousness, that would be an exercise of blatant ignorance.

Yeah, while watches may not be able to assemble themselves by chance, it isnt a leap of faith to assume that in the ocean of organic molecules a few amino acids would come together to form the first proteins (through a combination of chance and physics).

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by dmarker
Kind of interesting to note that clocks and watches have evolved themselves. :D


http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/time.html

Indeed. By gradual evolution and punctuated equilibrium.
(I'm a watchmaker)

[Tricky]

To summarize what Pahansiri said earlier:

"A designer capable of making a universe is far to complex to have assembled itself. It must have a designer."

Turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down.

[Thanz]

I don't know when, or by whom, this argument got twisted this way but it has become a pet peeve of mine.

The "watchmaker" argument is an attempted proof of the existence of God. It is not (or, at least, should not) be an argument for creationism.

The basic idea is that the universe is too complex to not have a designer. That designer is God. Therefore, God exists. The creationists take this one more step, and then say, therefore God created the universe. All this is doing is restating the assumption (the universe is too complex to not have a designer) as the conclusion. It is ridiculous.

I actually find some resonance with the argument as an argument for the existence of God. No, I don't think that it proves it. I just like it as an argument more than, for example, the perfection argument.

[Starrman]

How is this:

The basic idea is that the universe is too complex to not have a designer. That designer is God

Different than this:

The creationists take this one more step, and then say, therefore God created the universe.

The first says god designed the universe, and the second says he created it. How is it an extra step to go from god designed the universe to god created the universe. What am I missing here?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Starrman
How is this:



Different than this:



The first says god designed the universe, and the second says he created it. How is it an extra step to go from god designed the universe to god created the universe. What am I missing here?

Hello..


Tricky pointed out that what I was saying is that the belief that everything needs to be created or intelligent design or that life is so complex that it needs be designed/ created by something more complex is self- defeating.

We are not saying we agree with the creator belief we are demonstrating the self contradictory nature of it.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Starrman
The first says god designed the universe, and the second says he created it. How is it an extra step to go from god designed the universe to god created the universe. What am I missing here?
The difference is in how the argument is used. If the argument is just used to argue that god exists, it is just a philosophical exercise without any practical application. It doesn't try to explain the nature of the unkiverse or explain how things are - it says how things are is an indication of a designer.

When people argue it as a creationist theory, they usually present it as an alternative to evolution. As a scientific theory, it adds nothing. It doesn't explain the nature of anything.

I don't know if I am making myself clear or not. To me, there is a clear difference. ID creationists seem to be bootstrapping an assumption into a conclusion.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The first says god designed the universe, and the second says he created it. How is it an extra step to go from god designed the universe to god created the universe. What am I missing here?
Perhaps God did all the tricky design work, and then let his elves do the actual creating.

[Franko]

"A designer capable of making a universe is far to complex to have assembled itself. It must have a designer."

The Laws of Physics are responsible for all the “design” we see in nature/the universe – aren’t they?

Does that mean that the Laws of Physics are to complex to have “designed themselves”?

Are the Laws of Physics to complex to have “assembled themselves”?

Are the laws of physics omnipotent relative to you?

I still don’t understand the difference between what Christians call “God” and what Atheists call “TLOP”?; nor do I comprehend why the cult of discord believe this watchmakers argument applies more to their adversaries “God” then to their own “God”? Maybe it’s just more smoke and mirrors?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Franko


The Laws of Physics are responsible for all the “design” we see in nature/the universe – aren’t they?

Does that mean that the Laws of Physics are to complex to have “designed themselves”?

Are the Laws of Physics to complex to have “assembled themselves”?

Are the laws of physics omnipotent relative to you?

I still don’t understand the difference between what Christians call “God” and what Atheists call “TLOP”?; nor do I comprehend why the cult of discord believe this watchmakers argument applies more to their adversaries “God” then to their own “God”? Maybe it’s just more smoke and mirrors? I don't see why you're so busy fetishizing the laws of physics. They're just a human-created description of the how the universe apparently works. If you have a question about where the universe comes from, well who doesn't?

[Franko]

They're [TLOP] just a human-created description of the how the universe apparently works.

Yeah ... try pouring gasoline over your head and lighting a match while you repeat this mantra.

The Laws of Physics are what we know about the laws of Nature, but the fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that the laws themselves do not exist in reality. Surely they do.

What you are saying sounds kind of like claiming the "matter" only exist when you are looking at it.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Franko


Yeah ... try pouring gasoline over your head and lighting a match while you repeat this mantra.

The Laws of Physics are what we know about the laws of Nature, but the fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that the laws themselves do not exist in reality. Surely they do.

What you are saying sounds kind of like claiming the "matter" only exist when you are looking at it. The laws of physics describe what we know about nature (not laws of nature), I agree. So what? I've observed that gasoline burns, so I'll decline your invitation.

What I said is nothing like "'matter' only exists when I'm looking at it." It's more like "we can describe, to some extent, what we've observed, and there's a lot more detail in fill in as we observe more." That includes more about origins (or at least early stages) of the universe. I have no idea if we'll ever find out where the universe came from. Do you? What's your point vis-a-vis the watchmaker metaphor?

[fishbob]

I still don’t understand the difference between what Christians call “God” and what Atheists call “TLOP”?;
Compare and contrast:

What Christians call "God" is some sentient, all-powerful being that you'd better worship, or else suffer some nasty fate for all eternity.

What atheists call "TLOP" are descriptions of how things work, the boundaries that we all are constrained to work within. You can worship them or ignore them or struggle to understand them or stand on your head and waggle your odd bare bodkin at them and it will make no difference. You still live for a while and then you die. That's it.

[Fun2BFree]

The analogy is wrong on many levels...

Watches are complex- but if you start with raw metal bits there is no force to select out the pieces that might be randomly shaped such that they would make good watch pieces...there is no force that would select to hold onto two pieces that happened to come together toward becoming a watch...

natural selection is not a random process---the random part is in the many different "pieces" that nature spits out..but when two pieces fit together and have some survival advantage over other pieces and assemblies then those superior pieces not only survive they pass onto the next generation..this is not random selection this is selection of the best pieces-...and best merely means the pieces designed for selection...the ones with staying power stay the ones without as much power don't--(as Larry Hagman once observed about divorce and marriage--"People who stay married, stay married.") How is the construction of any complex machine anything like that?

Man-made things are formed by man made choices but not even every complex thing was "designed" Who designed the free market system? The English Language? These are very complex systems that came together and EVOLVED over time to what they are now from much smaller parts...because little parts that fit well survived and were passed on until it became these complex systems...in fact the MOST complex things like language can only come about by such a process of NON-DESIGNED, natural selection--anybody speak Esperanto?

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, you can look through the evolution of watches all the way up to digital. Even they started out more simple. I mean, sundials are hardly complex.

So, humans had to make them because they don't reproduce on their own. They still evolved.

It's the same with animals. They evolved too.

The first time I saw the clock/watch analogy I got pretty mad. I was like 8 and thinking "that's not how it works". I hadn't really heard much about evolution by then, but even at that young of an age I got mad about the example being so unfair.

The same day they showed us a miracle about water. See, there's this dirty water. And they talk about god and they put 'holy' water in the dirty water. The water turns clear. I could smell the chlorine a mile away. Sure enough, hidden behind the door to the kitchen was a bottle of bleach. I got annoyed that they thought they could trick us like that. They had the nerve to call it a miracle and say it was god that cleared up the water for them.

Hmph.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
The Laws of Physics are responsible for all the “design” we see in nature/the universe – aren’t they?

Does that mean that the Laws of Physics are to complex to have “designed themselves”?

Are the Laws of Physics to complex to have “assembled themselves”?
I dont know how I can put this more bluntly: The Laws of Physics exist because matter exists, physics is the science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two.

The laws of Physics are only complex to those who are really bad at physics.

How about an introduction to Electricity and Magnetism just as a demonstration (excuse me if I dont use the correct Greek letters):

Electric Current: I = q/t

I - Current
q - quantity of charge
t - time

Coulomb's Law of Electrostatics: F=k (q₁ * q₂)/d²

F - force between two charges
k - proportionality constant
q₁ * q₂ - product of charges
d - distance seperating charges

Induced emf:
Coil in a magnetic field: E = -N (dθ )/dt

E - induced emf
N - number of turns
(dθ )/dt - the change in flux linage in a given interval of time

Induced emf:
Conductor in a magnetic field: E = B * l * v

E - induced emf
B flux density of the magnetic field
l - length of conductor
v - velocity of conductor across magnetic field

(Source: I came across a chart of Electricity and Magentism Relationships and I thought it looked interesting, so I picked it up and began reading it.)

Confusing ain't it (its everything any engineer or 8th grade physics teacher should know)... it's a lot easier to say "GOD DID IT ALL", but of course electricity and magnetism are physical properties of matter (called electromagnetism).

Are the laws of physics omnipotent relative to you?
I would think the laws of Physics are not "omnipotent", I think the word you were searching for is "omnipresent", if so then sure, the Laws of Physics definitely exist everywhere.

I still don’t understand the difference between what Christians call “God” and what Atheists call “TLOP”?;
Are you serious? Given that I havent had time to really find out who you are, I cant tell if this is a joke or not.

If it helps at all, God is just a fairytale invented by primitive man (Manmade Gods... funny) to fill in the gaps of what he did not understand (i.e. "Where do earthquakes come from", "Thunder is scary"). The God concept evolved (punny) to include an afterlife, detailed mythology, and even a generalized version of morality. In fact, some people cant even decide which variation of their fairtytale is the correct one.

Physics is (as I stated above) the science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two. Thanks to Sir Isaac Newton (and many others), he helped to take Algebra to the next level and evolve it into Calculus (just ask if you want me to explain the difference between Algebra and Calculus). Of course, the laws of Physics are demonstratably true, that gives them quite an edge over God. All Physics are the same in labs all around the world. Physicists dont disagree with each other (save that for the world of Physical Theorizing), all physicists will agree Avg. Acceleration of an object = (v_final - v_initial)/t, Force = mass * acceleration (Newtons second law), Physics is phun!

There are plenty of ways Physics and God differ from each other. The immediate one I can think of is the fact that some people believe God(s) is a living sentient being, no physicist will tell you Physics is a living sentient being.

All the Physics I described above (which is probably the most generalized nutshell version of Newtonian Physics you can find) isnt the entire story, there is still Quantum Physics, Chemistry*, Theorectical Particle Physics, that funny kind of physics involved with the study of Superfluids, and a plethora of other physics. Mmmmm, my mouth is drooling just thinking about all that physics.

Note: Chemistry, though a branch of general physics, is commonly treated as a science by itself, and the application of physical principles which it involves constitute a branch called chemical physics, which treats more especially of those physical properties of matter which are used by chemists in defining and distinguishing substances. (Source for Note: Dictionary.com)

nor do I comprehend why the cult of discord believe this watchmakers argument applies more to their adversaries “God” then to their own “God”? Maybe it’s just more smoke and mirrors?
I'm not entirely sure what that means, I'm still transfixed by all that physics...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
The same day they showed us a miracle about water. See, there's this dirty water. And they talk about god and they put 'holy' water in the dirty water. The water turns clear. I could smell the chlorine a mile away. Sure enough, hidden behind the door to the kitchen was a bottle of bleach. I got annoyed that they thought they could trick us like that. They had the nerve to call it a miracle and say it was god that cleared up the water for them.
Dont drink the Holy Water, kiddies, It may induce vomiting :D...

[Eos of the Eons]

LMAO! yeah, they dumped it down the drain right after, it was just half a glass of 'holy water" :D

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah ... try pouring gasoline over your head and lighting a match while you repeat this mantra.
The heat energy from the flame will "excite" the molecules of gasoline, the outer shell electrons will temporarily exchange with other outer shell electrons, the is called a chemical reaction (the name for this particular chemical reaction is called "combustion"). Combustion reactions are interesting because their properties allow them to sustain cascading chain reactions.

I didnt memorize the chemical properties of gasoline, if I did I would gladly show you the chemical formula for the reaction.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Chemistry!

The Laws of Physics are what we know about the laws of Nature, but the fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that the laws themselves do not exist in reality. Surely they do.
I dont know what you mean by "Laws of Nature".

I notice I hear this a lot in my life, when people use the phrase "we know everything", its almost like they are asking humans to be God to prove that he doesnt exist.

The Laws of Physics do in fact exist in reality.

What you are saying sounds kind of like claiming the "matter" only exist when you are looking at it.
From the original quote "They're [TLOP] just a human-created description of the how the universe apparently works", I see in no way how you could have gathered that understanding from what he wrote (unless the offchance you decided to deliberately misrepresent what he wrote simply to make it easier to attack).

The Laws of Physics describe the mechanics of the universe, that means they tell us why things work (this is called "Conceptual Physics"... at the moment I've forgotten the name of the Physics that tells us how things work, I want to say "cosmology" but I know that isnt anywhere near correct). Example of Conceptual Physics (its not nearly as scary as the word makes it sound): When I drive my car 20 miles in the span of 30 minutes, I use the distance/time formula, and it tells me I drove and average speed 40 mph (yes, there is also a forumla for instantaneous velocity, it requires a bit more Calculus).

[Yahweh]

Just pretend I didnt post the same message twice...

[-=Vagrant=-]

Life is complex and therefore must be designed. This designer must be God.
Wathces are complex and therefore must be designed. This designer is a watchmaker, so watchmakers must be gods.
I'm a watchmaker, therefore I am God.

:D

[homunculus]

One of the best books ever written about the traditional "proofs" (teleological, ontological etc.) for the existence of God, is Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

With regard to the argument from Design, this has been so thoroughly trounced by so many people, it amazes me people are still using it. The ignorance of these fundies is staggering.

For a start, the leap from qualities posessed by man-made objects, to inductive conclusions about the entire universe, is unjustified. Second, the problem of apparent design and organisation cannot be solved by invoking another complex, organised thing. This merely shifts the problem, since we are then left to wonder how complexity arose in the designer. If the theist dodges this by arguing that the designer does not need designing (because he is the designer) this is nothing but circular and gratuitous special pleading.

I could go on criticizing this "proof" all day long. It really is THAT misguided an argument. Hume introduces all kinds of bizarre and decidedly non-Christian solutions to the problem of that "marvellous adaption of means to ends" (most famously, the prospect of a whole legion of gods, all working together on the universe-making project) but these days, we have a naturalistic theory which comfortably accounts for all the biological diversity we see around us.

Were anyone here (or any of the skeptics) walking along a beach, when they found a pretty little gold watch in the sand, we might well amuse ourselves with the fact that a mindless, algorithmic sorting process can (given enough time) result in beings capable of making such clever contraptions...

Paul.

[arcticpenguin]

A perverse thought enters my mind: why not use the 'white crow' argument so popular with paranormal gulls on the Creationist watchmaker crowd? Just because every watch they ever saw was built in a factory doesn't mean that someday, somewhere, a watch couldn't assemble itself.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

The same day they showed us a miracle about water. See, there's this dirty water. And they talk about god and they put 'holy' water in the dirty water. The water turns clear. I could smell the chlorine a mile away. Sure enough, hidden behind the door to the kitchen was a bottle of bleach. I got annoyed that they thought they could trick us like that. They had the nerve to call it a miracle and say it was god that cleared up the water for them.

Hmph.
Is this a true story? Who are 'they'? If this is true I'd like to hear more, either here or in a different thread.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Franko


I still don’t understand the difference between what Christians call “God” and what Atheists call “TLOP?



An assignment you will never see in a public or religious school:

Compare and contrast the notion of a Christian God and the laws of physics with regard to these five properties:

Observable
Independently Reproducible
Falsifiable
Testable
Independently Verifiable.

[Franko]

Franko:
I still don’t understand the difference between what Christians call “God” and what Atheists call “TLOP”?

fishbob replied:
Compare and contrast:

What Christians call "God" is some sentient, all-powerful being that you'd better worship, or else suffer some nasty fate for all eternity.

But how exactly is that different than what the Atheists/Materialists/Discordians believe about their “God” TLOP?

What Atheists call "TLOP" is at least as sentient as they are since TLOP controls the behavior of ALL matter and physical brains are clearly made of matter. Atheists believe that TLOP is an all-powerful force which is impossible to resist or overcome. They believe that you'd better “worship” TLOP, or else suffer some nasty fate for all eternity.

In short, people who believe that TLOP is the source of all power behave as if TLOP is the source of all power; and people who believe that “God” is the source of all power behave as if they believe “God” is the source of all power.

So I really don’t perceive the fundamental difference that you are asserting exists between the two groups?

fishbob:
What atheists call "TLOP" are descriptions of how things work, the boundaries that we all are constrained to work within.

Yes … and what Muslims call “Allah” (or his autobiography the Koran) is a description of how and why things work, the boundaries that we all are constrained to work within.

fishbob:
You can worship them or ignore them or struggle to understand them or stand on your head and waggle your odd bare bodkin at them and it will make no difference.

… And by the same token, You can worship Allah, or ignore him, or struggle to understand his divine words, or stand on your head and waggle your bare bodkin at him, and it will make no difference.

fishbob:
You still live for a while and then you die. That's it.

i.e. Praise to Allah, and blessed be his true prophet!

[Acrimonious]

What Atheists call "TLOP" is at least as sentient as they are since TLOP controls the behavior of ALL matter and physical brains are clearly made of matter.

I know we've been over this a million times already, but how do you make the jump from:

Mathematical equations that describe interactions between matter and energy.

to:

Sentient, all-powerful being?

That's a pretty big leap. No, I do not accept your Mantra (TLOP controls FRANKO controls FAULTY LOGIC) as more evidence of your Mantra.

Atheists believe that TLOP is an all-powerful force which is impossible to resist or overcome.

Strange, I'm an Atheist, and I believe nothing of the sort. When did you start speaking on all our behalf? I certainly didn't vote for you.

I believe the Laws of Physics are mathematical equations that help describe interactions between matter and energy. They don't control anyone. But, given some parameters in some situations, you can deduce their outcomes.

In other situations, TLOP can't really help you.

For instance: Schroedinger's Cat. Is it alive or dead? I don't know until I open the box. You don't know until you open the box. Even using TLOP, you can't deduce the cat's state until the box is open.

That's "all-powerful" and "sentient?"

They believe that you'd better “worship” TLOP, or else suffer some nasty fate for all eternity.

Point out to me a single Atheist organization whose tenets include TLOP worship.


And welcome back, Franko. I hope your return is as civil and long-lived as Jedi Knight's was.

[Pahansiri]

Franko wrote ( I have pointed this contradiction in his belief many times)

They believe that you'd better “worship” TLOP, or else suffer some nasty fate for all eternity.

and

Atheists believe that TLOP is an all-powerful force which is impossible to resist or overcome.

Franko my friend you believe your Goddess is TLOP and her will is as you say impossible to resist or overcome.

Yet you also say

They believe that you'd better “worship” TLOP, or else suffer some nasty fate for all eternity.


You believe in no form of free will.

Yet you believe that you are doing as your Goddess commands and we are not and will suffer for this.

So if as you say :
TLOP is an all-powerful force which is impossible to resist or overcome.

and there is no form of free will.

Then How can we resist or overcome. what you say can not be resist-ed or overcome., your goddess will?

I have asked you this same question many times and with no response.


To lay this out one more time.

If TLOP/Goddess controls all and her power is impossible to resist or overcome. there is no form of free will and you are doing what she desires, how can we not be doing her will and believing what she demands we do?

[Franko]

Mathematical equations that describe interactions between matter and energy.

to:

Sentient, all-powerful being?

Define “Sentient”.

If TLOP controls the behavior of all matter then doesn’t that mean that TLOP controls your physical brain which is made of matter? How exactly are you reaching the conclusion that TLOP is any less “sentient” than “You” are?

And as for “all-powerful”, are you contending that TLOP is not “all-powerful”? Could you please elaborate?

Franko:
Atheists believe that TLOP is an all-powerful force which is impossible to resist or overcome.

Acrimonius:
Strange, I'm an Atheist, and I believe nothing of the sort. When did you start speaking on all our behalf? I certainly didn't vote for you.

I am only speaking on my own behalf (although it’s possible I am only a figment of your imagination), and as far as I know the Secular Discordians haven’t yet been able to institute a complete ban on opinions at odds with the sacred and divine orthodoxy.

I believe the Laws of Physics are mathematical equations that help describe interactions between matter and energy.

How often does Gravity not obey the inverse square law?

They don't control anyone.

I don’t follow what you mean.

If the laws of physics describe the behavior of ALL matter, and your brain is made of matter, then don’t the laws of physics describe the behavior of ALL brain function?

But, given some parameters in some situations, you can deduce their outcomes.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying as well; except I go one step farther. I am saying that if you knew ALL of the parameters (as opposed to only some) you could deduce ALL outcomes with 100% accuracy. If you are contesting this point then could you please elaborate as to precisely why you don’t believe this is the case?

In other situations, TLOP can't really help you.

For instance: Schroedinger's Cat. Is it alive or dead? I don't know until I open the box. You don't know until you open the box. Even using TLOP, you can't deduce the cat's state until the box is open.

That’s right! … and the reason you cannot has to do with consciousness (sentience) or the perception of Time. But since – according to you – sentience and perception are merely a byproduct of TLOP, then the who thing is governed (controlled by) TLOP. That’s why we say that TLOP is all-powerful (omnipotent).

Point out to me a single Atheist organization whose tenets include TLOP worship.

First point me out a single, individual Atheist who doesn’t worship TLOP.

Worship = great admiration, respect or regard for = to honor as superior to oneself

[hgc]

Franco:

I am only speaking on my own behalf (although it’s possible I am only a figment of your imagination), and as far as I know the Secular Discordians haven’t yet been able to institute a complete ban on opinions at odds with the sacred and divine orthodoxy. Looks like Franco used his absense to come up with new insults, but alas, no new ideas.

[Franko]

Pahansiri:
Franko wrote ( I have pointed this contradiction in his belief many times)
They believe that you'd better “worship” TLOP, or else suffer some nasty fate for all eternity.

and

Atheists believe that TLOP is an all-powerful force which is impossible to resist or overcome.

You believe in no form of free will.

Yet you believe that you are doing as your Goddess commands and we are not and will suffer for this.

No my friend, I am a fatalist. I believe that EVERYONE is obeying their Fate, and that includes the Atheists.

All I contend is that some people are aware that they are pawns of Fate, and some people are unaware of it.

Pahansiri:
So if as you say :

TLOP is an all-powerful force which is impossible to resist or overcome.

and there is no form of free will.

Then How can we

resist or overcome.

what you say can not be

resist-ed or overcome.

I agree. Obviously it is so. How would one resist or overcome reality?

Pahansiri:
I have asked you this same question many times and with no response.

To lay this out one more time.

If TLOP/Goddess controls all and her power is

impossible to resist or overcome.

there is no form of free will and you are doing what she desires, how can we not be doing her will and believing what she demands we do?

You can’t.

You are going to do exactly what you are preordained (pre-programmed) to do, and there is nothing that you can do to resist, overcome, or stop it.

The same is true for me and everyone else, it is only a matter of how you perceive it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

First point me out a single, individual Atheist who doesn’t worship TLOP. *ahem*
:w2:
Worship = great admiration, respect or regard for = to honor as superior to oneselfThere ya go, by your own words. I don't honor the laws of physics as superior to myself, therefore I don't worship them.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Franko


In short, people who believe that TLOP is the source of all power behave as if TLOP is the source of all power; and people who believe that “God” is the source of all power behave as if they believe “God” is the source of all power.

So I really don’t perceive the fundamental difference that you are asserting exists between the two groups?



Yes … and what Muslims call “Allah” (or his autobiography the Koran) is a description of how and why things work, the boundaries that we all are constrained to work within.



… And by the same token, You can worship Allah, or ignore him, or struggle to understand his divine words, or stand on your head and waggle your bare bodkin at him, and it will make no difference.



i.e. Praise to Allah, and blessed be his true prophet!


Compare and contrast the notion of a Allah and the Koran (or any of the major Gods) and the laws of physics with regard to these five properties:

Observable
Independently Reproducible
Falsifiable
Testable
Independently Verifiable.

[Acrimonious]

You are going to do exactly what you are preordained (pre-programmed) to do, and there is nothing that you can do to resist, overcome, or stop it.

After months and months of continually trolling this forum with your "philosophy," it seems that not even a single individual "graviton" was pre-programmed to be swayed by you.

You are the little graviton that could. You have no choice but to spam us with your philosophy. Fate has decreed that you continue on, evangelizing a belief system that, by its very preordained, unchangeable nature, requires no evangelization.

Irony and futility all rolled into one.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
But how exactly is that different than what the Atheists/Materialists/Discordians believe about their “God” TLOP?
My post above addresses this very same question, I described in detail using lots of formulas. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you legitimately missed my nice little post.

What Atheists call "TLOP" is at least as sentient as they are since TLOP controls the behavior of ALL matter and physical brains are clearly made of matter.
The Laws of Physics are not sentient, revise your understanding of physics.

Atheists believe that TLOP is an all-powerful force which is impossible to resist or overcome.
Your description of what atheists believe is incorrect.
Your definition of physics is incorrect.

They believe that you'd better “worship” TLOP, or else suffer some nasty fate for all eternity.
Now thats just made up or you have some serious misunderstandings of what atheists are.

In short, people who believe that TLOP is the source of all power behave as if TLOP is the source of all power; and people who believe that “God” is the source of all power behave as if they believe “God” is the source of all power.
Wrong, even for a nutshell its still very very wrong. Are you familiar with behavioral Psychology?

So I really don’t perceive the fundamental difference that you are asserting exists between the two groups?
I thought you were making the assertions?

Yes … and what Muslims call “Allah” (or his autobiography the Koran) is a description of how and why things work, the boundaries that we all are constrained to work within.
It describes how and why things work in terms of "God", to explain something in terms of God is to explain exactly nothing.

Also remember, Religion is has that mythology, morality, and general absurdity all packed into one. This is not the same for physics.

(Your use of the word "autobiography" suggests that Allah wrote the Koran, the words "fictional biography" are more accurate.)

… And by the same token, You can worship Allah, or ignore him, or struggle to understand his divine words, or stand on your head and waggle your bare bodkin at him, and it will make no difference.
I dont accept faith in fairytales as any acceptable means of understanding.

i.e. Praise to Allah, and blessed be his true prophet!
I'd rather pray to the sun and worship Joe Pesci...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Now thats just made up or you have some serious misunderstandings of what atheists are.

"What is Franko's modus operandi?"

I'll take "Really Poor-A$$ Logic" for 1000, Alex.

[Franko]

fun2bfree wrote:
Compare and contrast the notion of a Allah and the Koran (or any of the major Gods) and the laws of physics with regard to these five properties:

Observable
Independently Reproducible
Falsifiable
Testable
Independently Verifiable.

I am sorry my friend, I am not sure what you are trying to ask me?

Allah and TLOP are essentially two terms for the same thing. If TLOP meets any or all of your five criteria, then so does Allah. To a Muslim TLOP is just the observable aspect of Allah’s will. Allah’s “body” is perceived in “the matter” (the universe) itself.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Franko


I am sorry my friend, I am not sure what you are trying to ask me?

Allah and TLOP are essentially two terms for the same thing. If TLOP meets any or all of your five criteria, then so does Allah. To a Muslim TLOP is just the observable aspect of Allah’s will. Allah’s “body” is perceived in “the matter” (the universe) itself. Premise presupposes conclusion. And round and round we go. How do you live with yourself? Oh yeah, you had no choice.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Allah’s “body” is perceived in “the matter” (the universe) itself. I'm not familiar with this interpretation of Islam, nor do I see any references online to Allah being personified in this manner. What is the source of this interpretation of Islam?

(For that matter, what is the source of your interpretation of atheims, while you're at it?)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Define “Sentient”.
A quick dictionary.com search gives me these results:
Having sense perception; conscious
Yeah, that seems about right.

If TLOP controls the behavior of all matter then doesn’t that mean that TLOP controls your physical brain which is made of matter?
You keep referring to physics as "controlling", perhaps the word "obey" is a bit more appropriate.

Control:
To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct

Obey:
Comply with

When I drop a ball off a building, physics doesnt grab hold of the rock and make it accelerate at ~9.8 m/s², physics says it is going to fall with an acceleration of ~9.8 m/s² (under the assumption the ball was dropped with no initial velocity, for the purposes described you can ignore air resistance). Do you see, physics is a science, physics describes how things work, physics doesnt "control" things because it is not sentient.

How exactly are you reaching the conclusion that TLOP is any less “sentient” than “You” are?
First, physics is a science. The definition of physics is defined as:
The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

I am WHAT I am, I also exist objectively in reality.

You are trying give "the science that describes how and why things work" physical characteristics. That is a common logical error, you are trying to treat an abstract concept ("the science that describes how and why things work") as something that exists objectively and concretely. That would be like trying to saying prepositions exist objectively.
(Just incase there are any misunderstandings, please dont try to strawman me by misinterpreting what I am saying as "I dont believe in physics", because that is clearly not what I meant).

And as for “all-powerful”, are you contending that TLOP is not “all-powerful”? Could you please elaborate?
All powerful would suggest existing outside of the laws of physics, the assumption "physics is all-powerful" is internally contradictory (as well as the notion of omnipotence).

I am only speaking on my own behalf
I doubt you are being sincere, using the phrase "Atheists believe" is clearly not speaking for yourself.

(although it’s possible I am only a figment of your imagination)
Absurd.

and as far as I know the Secular Discordians haven’t yet been able to institute a complete ban on opinions at odds with the sacred and divine orthodoxy.
I dont understand that.

How often does Gravity not obey the inverse square law?
It always "obeys" the Inverse Square Law.

Just for a refresher, here is a good source to describe the Inverse Square Law of Gravity: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html

If the laws of physics describe the behavior of ALL matter, and your brain is made of matter, then don’t the laws of physics describe the behavior of ALL brain function?
Because the brain exists on such a high "level" (for lack of better words), physics isnt "good enough" (still lacking better words) to describe the function of the brain. Physics is perfectly acceptable for describing the way things behave on the molecular level. Physics is also perfectly acceptable for describing the way things behave on the macro level when use you use the correct form of identity.

You have made a common logical error, the technical term for this is called "f**king up the identity", it simply means you oversimplified the reasoning in your logic.

To describe the brain, we use a different kind of science, this science is called Biology. More specifically, there a plenty of different kinds Neurobiology: Cognitive science, psycholinguistics, cellular neurobiology, genetics, biochemistry and pharmacology, neuropyschology (includes behavior, perception, face recognition, developmental psychology).

Psycology is yet another kind of science, it describes why things (in biological terms) work the way they do.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying as well; except I go one step farther. I am saying that if you knew ALL of the parameters (as opposed to only some) you could deduce ALL outcomes with 100% accuracy. If you are contesting this point then could you please elaborate as to precisely why you don’t believe this is the case?
Well, if you knew the spin of every electron, the position of every molecule, every other molecular "parameter" you can think of, you would not be able to predict the outcome, that would be f**king up the identity again. You essentially asking us to be omniscient to prove that things can be predicted, again another logic error.

I dont believe in fate, I dont believe things can be predicted and I dont believe in predeterminism. Why? Because that would be absurd.

That’s right! … and the reason you cannot has to do with consciousness (sentience) or the perception of Time. But since – according to you – sentience and perception are merely a byproduct of TLOP, then the who thing is governed (controlled by) TLOP. That’s why we say that TLOP is all-powerful (omnipotent).
I went through all those points above... re-read it if you have to...

First point me out a single, individual Atheist who doesn’t worship TLOP.
I love science, I love to teach science (and Philosophy), I dont worship it.

Worship = great admiration, respect or regard for = to honor as superior to oneself
I also LOVE animals, I practically worship kitties. Well, I do infact have very high regard and respect for women, I worship women. I honor Mrs. Yahweh higher than myself, I have great admiration and respect for her, I worship her.

Other people might worship money, or perhaps a celebrity, etc. etc. etc.

One problem, I associate worship (in religous context) with Religion. It would be absurd to believe that everyone is a polytheist because it is not an adequate definition of worship,hence "Atheists worship the Laws of Physics" is inherent flawed.

[gentlehorse]

Franko:
If TLOP controls the behavior of all matter then doesn’t that mean that TLOP controls your physical brain which is made of matter? How exactly are you reaching the conclusion that TLOP is any less “sentient” than “You” are?

If anyone's answered this, I missed it. I find it an interesting question.

I don't think Franko's saying that the mathematical models we use to describe the universe are sentient. As hammegk would say, he's talking about the territory, not the map. TLOP to which Frank refers are not the desription, but rather that which is being described. It just so happens that we refer to the description as TLOP as well, which can be a source of confusion. The "laws" which observably control the behavior of all matter (including grey matter), the laws which we attempt to describe and model, are the TLOP of which Franko speaks. If these "laws", "forces", what-have-you, determine the behavior of the matter which is your brain, and sentience emerges from the behavior of that matter, how is it that they can be any less sentient than you? Hell, in a way it seems that TLOP are sentience.

[Yahweh]

Franko,

This is me (Yahweh) talking to you (Franko), listen to me: If you want to discuss and debate Philosophy and Science, please PLEASE go to college and get yourself a working knowledge of Philosophy and Science.

Oh, and work on your "logic", its not very good.

[UserGoogol]

The Laws of Physics (TLOP) are the set of all descriptions about what we know about The Way Things Are (TWTA) which have been thoroughly tested. (Eh, in the division of Physics, anyway.) The two terms are often exchanged by less knowledgable people, because scientists tend to think that The Laws of Physics probably describe TWTA pretty well, as such things go.

That said, TWTA does not control the Universe. TWTA is just how the universe is. If the Universe inexplicably had the gravitational constant fluxuate greatly, that would just be how it is. If the universe suddenly became a bowl of tapioca, this would just be the way things are. Now, that doesn't seem to be the Way Things Are, so I don't think that's going to happen.

Gods are a kind of thing which can make things happen. That is, they are a cause. TWTA is just how things happen to be.

I am fully aware that this still meshes with a sufficiently vague definition of God. But if that's the case, then it's impossible to not a sort of Animist. The-way-my-pants-are would be a god, the-way-my-TV-is would be a god, the-way-my-computer-is would be a god, and the-way-Franko-is would be a god.

[ceptimus]

I think people are misinterpreting the word 'law' in TLOP. These 'laws' are just the best mathematical model we've managed to figure out that explain how things seem to work.

Most scientists expect that our current crop of 'laws' will be modified, or replaced altogether at some time in the future as new discoveries are made.

For example, Einstein's equations replaced Newton's as the best model of how things (on the large scale) work. Scientists do still use Newton's laws as a convenient and very good approximation, but they agree that Newton's laws are actually wrong, and that Einstein's are the best we have right now - until (maybe) something even better is thought up.

This is different to religion. Not many religious people would say, 'God isn't perfect, but he's the best tool we've got until we dream up an improved version'.

[Iamme]

RichardR---You should send in your (first?) post from page one...to TBN! :eek:

[Iamme]

The ERK---Regarding where I found that bit of info on the possum: iI got it from an ad publication that sprinkles bits of trivia inside, so that people normally not interested in the ads, might happen upon ads while reading the trivia and jokes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's another:

Only two people signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th: John Hancock and Charles Thomson. Most of the rest signed on August 2nd, but the last signature wasn't added until 5 years later.

[Iamme]

Eos---Water being miraculously cleared up, and here you find out clorine did it? Hmmmm. What do you say to the believer, who, when confronted with a lack of modern day miracles...the kind that are visible...not any of those so called cancer cures where we neither know if there was cancer or if it could have spontaneously disappeared on it's own...that the proof lies in the fact that God gave us doctors. And it is God, working through the hands of doctors.:rolleyes:

[Pyrian]

gentlehorse:
I don't think Franko's saying that the mathematical models we use to describe the universe are sentient. As hammegk would say, he's talking about the territory, not the map. TLOP to which Frank refers are not the desription, but rather that which is being described. It just so happens that we refer to the description as TLOP as well, which can be a source of confusion. The "laws" which observably control the behavior of all matter (including grey matter), the laws which we attempt to describe and model, are the TLOP of which Franko speaks. If these "laws", "forces", what-have-you, determine the behavior of the matter which is your brain, and sentience emerges from the behavior of that matter, how is it that they can be any less sentient than you? Hell, in a way it seems that TLOP are sentience.I'll take on the operative term of this argument "how is it that they can be any less sentient than you?". A greater entity does not necessarily have the qualities of its constituents. The whole idea is actually kind of silly - I see no reason at all why something cannot give rise to something it does not itself consist of, particularly when what it's giving rise to is best described as a pattern anyway.

Imagine a pile of 1000 small, glass cubes jumbled together - each cube is transparent, but the pile is not.

An assortment of rectangular bricks can form a square object without having a single square brick.

Better related, a computer can run a game, but is not itself a game.

The list goes on.

The whole argument is strictly semantic, a trick of words designed to take two things which are literally defined differently and make them equivalent though stretching definitions. I think it's kind of sad that multiple people are so devoted to it.

[csense]

Originally posted by Pyrian
I see no reason at all why something cannot give rise to something it does not itself consist of, particularly when what it's giving rise to is best described as a pattern anyway.


If there is no knowledge of B within A, then you can not infer B from A.

The best you can posit is a correlation, not causality.

[Dancing David]

Bump.
The thread started as an essay of intelligent design and now we are back to lop . Sigh, I don't read for a couple of days and looks whats happens.

TLOP could be sentient or they could be simply causal, there at this point is no way to test. So in the science forum this is thumb twiddling comparable to p-zombies and the new improved p-car.

The whole issue rests on the definition of sentients. And how do we make observations about them..


TLOP cause people to wreck thier cars after they have seizues, does this mean that they intend for people to die?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Franko




Allah and TLOP are essentially two terms for the same thing. If TLOP meets any or all of your five criteria, then so does Allah. To a Muslim TLOP is just the observable aspect of Allah’s will. Allah’s “body” is perceived in “the matter” (the universe) itself.

Observable
Independently Reproducible
Falsifiable
Testable
Independently Verifiable


maybe you need to look up the meaning of the five terms...example-testable..the laws of physics say that everytime you drop a ball it will fall at a certain rate of accelleration..you can drop balls and measure and see if this is true(observable-testable)...Numerous people operating in different languages, with different upbringing -even if they never ever knew what answer physicists before have found will find the same answer everywhere on earth. (independently reproducible and independently verifiable)-if they don't (falsifiable)the laws get revised and rewritten (has not happened here)

There is no such offer in Allah or any other religion...no hypotheses or predictions are made that are testable about how the world works...when they have made predictions they have been shown to be absolutely wrong...

your inability to understand the difference between describing the way the world is and wishing the way the world would be is only proof of your shortcomings..

Science is proof without certainty.
Religions are certainty without proof.
(apologies for stealing somebody's similar quote)

[csense]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

Science is proof without certainty.


Then what is truth, if not without certainty.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Is this a true story? Who are 'they'? If this is true I'd like to hear more, either here or in a different thread.

"They" were the ladies running the Vacation Bible School that summer long long ago.

What more would you like to hear about? The tales of how humans used to be giants and lived for a thousand years?

And I swear I'm never going to get "this little light of mine" out of my head. ugh. I'm going to let it shine.... ***smacks head on desk***

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Iamme
Eos---Water being miraculously cleared up, and here you find out clorine did it? Hmmmm. What do you say to the believer, who, when confronted with a lack of modern day miracles...the kind that are visible...not any of those so called cancer cures where we neither know if there was cancer or if it could have spontaneously disappeared on it's own...that the proof lies in the fact that God gave us doctors. And it is God, working through the hands of doctors.:rolleyes:

Call me dense, but I don't really get what you mean here.

The fact that these ladies tried to make us believe it was holy water and that it cleansed the other water is not honest. My feeling was that if you have to lie to someone to make them believe in miracles, then what miracles anywhere aren't lies? Those crying marys and marys bleeding blood from their hands, etc. That jesus cloak that some famous artist tricked everyone with-having them fall for it and think it was the one jesus was buried in.

The Bakers. All the other TV evangelist hoaxsters.

I'm supposed to believe anything those miracle folks have to say? They not only lie, but stand behind their lies. Scientists at least expose each other and/or admit that a mistake was made.

Church folks will cover up for each other and make a bad situation worse (catholic pedophiles).

I learned at an early age that even 'religious' folks could be liars. It really did nothing to help my mistrust of people in general...that these pious folks lied to me more than the supposedly evil people that didn't go to church. That I was also told at summer camp (run by bible folks - seventh day adventists) not to be friends with people who don't believe in god. Here I was sitting there and having a group of people sitting all around me being told not to be friends with me (they didn't know I was atheist).

Sadly, I've had more bad experiences where I came away feeling bad rather than good when it comes to religion. It wasn't the same in science class. There was no judging, no guilt stuffed down your throat, and I got good grades.

Sadly, in grade 8 I had a creationist science teacher that skipped over the evolution sections (just told us to read over the one section on Tertiary, Cambrian, etc.) after making fun of it.
He was going on about monkeys. I asked "where did the monkeys come from" and he said "exactly". No information about mammalian evolution or the various types of humanoids that once walked the planet. I think I heard something about the earth being 6000 years old (I rolled my eyes). The thought of us evolving from a common ancestor was never entertained. We were just being told that chimps were not our forefathers and evolution was all a joke.

I remember learning mostly anatomy that year. The digestive system is a wonderously interesting topic when studied in great depth. I think I remembered all the names of all the human enzymes.

Forgive me for not believing in miracles. I like working out the possibilities for coincidence instead. Look at all the people that die of cancer, but when someone survives...it's a miracle. Hmmph. There are all kinds of and stages of cancer that gets treated. There is no mystery about people surviving. Only the wonders of human anatomy and the fact that we all have different tolerances of different things.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by csense


Then what is truth, if not without certainty.


Not all science is proof without certainty. Water is H20. Certain foods aren't nutritious. Microbes cause disease. There are a lot of certainties.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Franko


The Laws of Physics are responsible for all the “design” we see in nature/the universe – aren’t they?

Does that mean that the Laws of Physics are to complex to have “designed themselves”?

Are the Laws of Physics to complex to have “assembled themselves”?

Are the laws of physics omnipotent relative to you?

I still don’t understand the difference between what Christians call “God” and what Atheists call “TLOP”?; nor do I comprehend why the cult of discord believe this watchmakers argument applies more to their adversaries “God” then to their own “God”? Maybe it’s just more smoke and mirrors?

A) What design?

B) The watchmaker argument implies that an intelligent being of some sort made the watch and an intelligent being of some sort made living critters. However the laws of physics have no intelligence, no purpose, no design. And they are very simple. Look how many animals use them to fly.

[Pyrian]

csense:Pyrian:
I see no reason at all why something cannot give rise to something it does not itself consist of, particularly when what it's giving rise to is best described as a pattern anyway.If there is no knowledge of B within A, then you can not infer B from A.

The best you can posit is a correlation, not causality.So what? I mean, aside from the rather peculiar definition of knowledge required to make your statement accurate, I'm honestly not even clear what your angle here is supposed to be, this seems to me to be a complete non-sequitor.

A group of rectangles can form a square. None of the rectangles are themself square. That's all I'm saying. You could argue that they somehow have "knowledge of squareness" (or, more properly, they consist of properties that make the possibility of squareness derivable), but that still does not make them either square or sentient.

Are you trying to equate two meanings of knowledge to effectively imply that anything with any properties at all must be sentient?

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
The same day they showed us a miracle about water. See, there's this dirty water. And they talk about god and they put 'holy' water in the dirty water. The water turns clear. I could smell the chlorine a mile away. Sure enough, hidden behind the door to the kitchen was a bottle of bleach. I got annoyed that they thought they could trick us like that. They had the nerve to call it a miracle and say it was god that cleared up the water for them.
All Hail the mighty God Domestos, destroyer of germs and purifier of water.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons



Not all science is proof without certainty. Water is H20. Certain foods aren't nutritious. Microbes cause disease. There are a lot of certainties.

Well, pithy quotes are not meant to be dissected, but this gets into the meaning of certainty. For scientific thinking truth is that which is approached with ever increasing certainty as the evidence accumulates, but it always allows that new evidence could alter the understanding...hence there is always some if not very much uncertainty...it is fair to say that scientific proof approaches certainty asymptotically.

[whitefork]

"A watch just doesn't assemble itself."

The universe is just a big clock. The universe assembled itself.

All of our watches are just simplified universes. We assembled the watches. The universe assembled us.

What's the problem here?

[Dancing David]

Science is not certainty, it is approxiamation.

Truth is always true.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Truth is always true. It's 8:55.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Kullervo
It's 8:55. Touche and good point.

A truth that's only true twice a day (per time zone).

[whitefork]

Perhaps it's the self-assembling broken watch that's correct twice a day.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Kullervo

All of our watches are just simplified universes. We assembled the watches. The universe assembled us.

All our analog watches are simplified solar systems in which the sun revolves around the earth every 12 hours. What kind of @#$%@#$%-head designer would claim responsibility for that?

[Upchurch]

And what lame-a$$ designer puts 365.25 days in a year?

[whitefork]

I reckon someone at Playskool.... the same guy that gave us the Spirograph.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch


A truth that's only true twice a day (per time zone).

Kewl, now we can discuss if "Time" is infinitely divisible. ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk


Kewl, now we can discuss if "Time" is infinitely divisible. ;) :rub:
Originally posted by Kullervo

the same guy that gave us the Spirograph.I think the guy who gave us Spirograph could do a better job, personally. Eventually, the lines meet up again on a Spirograph.

[whitefork]

One of my favorite words just came to mind: Orrery:

[Franko]

Pyrian said:
I'll take on the operative term of this argument "how is it that they can be any less sentient than you?". A greater entity does not necessarily have the qualities of its constituents. The whole idea is actually kind of silly - I see no reason at all why something cannot give rise to something it does not itself consist of, particularly when what it's giving rise to is best described as a pattern anyway.

It sounds like you are saying that when it comes to consciousness (or sentience):

The WHOLE [is not necessarily equal to] the SUM OF ITS PARTS

Is that correct?

The WHOLE can appear to be [greater than] the SUM OF ITS PARTS … ???

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


It sounds like you are saying that when it comes to consciousness (or sentience):And yet, he didn't say anything about it applying specifically and exclusively to consciousness.
The WHOLE [is not necessarily equal to] the SUM OF ITS PARTS

Is that correct?

The WHOLE can appear to be [greater than] the SUM OF ITS PARTS … ??? Is either statement (which are different) implausable to you? The former statement can be shown through the example of the human body.

Human bones are pretty strong and hard to cut. Humans, on the other hand, are mostly soft and very easy to cut. On the scale of toughness, the a small part of the whole is greater than the sum of the whole.

The latter statement can be can be shown through the example of holograms. Holograms may appear like solid objects with texture and weight and whatever. However, holograms are made out of a little bit of plastic and photons. The whole can appear to be greater than the sum of it's parts.

[Franko]

Upchurch,

Just so I am clear, are you agreeing or disagreeing?

The WHOLE (Consciousness) is greater than the SUM OF ITS PARTS (atoms).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch,

Just so I am clear, are you agreeing or disagreeing?As you were asking a question in your previous post, I was doing neither. I was merely answering. Specifically, I said that of the two staments you made above, both can be true.
The WHOLE (Consciousness) is greater than the SUM OF ITS PARTS (atoms). This statement, however, I know of no evidence or situation that supports it, except in the abstract, perhaps. Do you?

[c4ts]

If you take a bunch of random laws that affect the same thing and put them all together you get TLOP.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
:rub:

You never do cease to amaze anyway. Which do consider "more certain"? That you will miss the point entirely, or just ignore it?

Shouldn't you be regaling the bystanders with more high-school physics?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk


You never do cease to amaze anyway. Which do consider "more certain"? That you will miss the point entirely, or just ignore it?

Shouldn't you be regaling the bystanders with more high-school physics? It'd be over your head. How about *I* perceive Dick and Jane?

[Franko]

Shouldn't you be regaling the bystanders with more high-school physics?

Brother Hand, am I to assume that the obvious obfuscations of the dancing discordians are failing to impress you?

I bet the devoutly faithful are impressed (or at least pacified).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

You never do cease to amaze anyway. Which do consider "more certain"? That you will miss the point entirely, or just ignore it?Actually, what I'm ignoring is a self-righteous troll who insults rather than argues. Did you have a point? Do you ever? Do I care?

I'm sorry I don't care enough about your trolling to pay your ego more attention, but I really don't.

So, :rub: is the best I can give you, hammegk. Go ask someone else to listen to your cries for attention.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Franko


I bet the devoutly faithful are impressed (or at least pacified).

It's interesting. As I read things these days, we have damn few materialists/atheists left. They seem to have noticed that reductionist materialism has "problems" and they have become "naturalists".

So far as I can tell this says that they are unwilling to discuss ontology, but are not 100% sure that materialism in one guise or another completely fills the bill. I may be wrong though.

I do know that I no longer know what category to deem them a "dumbness" of. :D

hgc, do you ever attempt to add something in any thread other than personal comments about me? Your problem btw, not mine. :rub:

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk

snip...

hgc, do you ever attempt to add something in any thread other than personal comments about me? Your problem btw, not mine. :rub: Oh sure, all the time. But whenever you show up blabbing your usual nonsense, I can't help but kick a little mud. I know I shouldn't, but such easy targets are hard to come by.

edited to add

Oh, and while we're at it, I'm still waiting to find out the source of your absolute morals.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
Oh, and while we're at it, I'm still waiting to find out the source of your absolute morals.

Didn't glean anything from my response to your question in that thread, huh?

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk


Didn't glean anything from my response to your question in that thread, huh? I can't remember the last place I asked you. Can you supply a link, please?

edited to add:
I found it in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27507&highlight=absolute+morals), and I'll address it there.

[Pyrian]

Franko:
when it comes to consciousness (or sentience)In point of fact, I was deliberately avoiding speaking directly of that subject. I was merely attacking the position that sentience in the universe proves TWTA is sentient on the basis of it including sentience as a consequence (or constituent). My attack was not an attack on the specific instance (as sentience has not been defined to my satisfaction it is difficult to work with directly), but rather on the general statement that a whole necessarily has all the qualities of its parts. A single counter-example is theoretically sufficient to disprove a general rule, although in this case it is easy to provide any number, since the statement (once reduced to its constituent components) doesn't work.

Glass is transparent. An airplane has glass components. This does not mean we can say that an airplane is transparent - although we can say that it has transparent components.

Humans are sentient. TWTA includes human components. This does not mean we can say that TWTA is sentient - although we can say is has sentient components.

At the risk of offending a few people...

Brains are sentient. Humans contain brains. But in this case, we can and do describe the whole as having a property of the part - although that description could be attacked as imprecise.Franko:
The WHOLE [is not necessarily equal to] the SUM OF ITS PARTSIck. "Sum" is insufficiently defined in context to make this sentence have a distinct meaning. That aside, I would tend to agree with this statement, as a set of parts can form a number of distinct wholes unless you're restricted to a single type of part in a single dimension (which is how simple mathematics, like sums, are done).

A pile of airplane parts does not necessarily equal an airplane in all respects.Franko:
The WHOLE can appear to be [greater than] the SUM OF ITS PARTS … ???Or less than, which was more my point. Although once you introduce an "appear to be" clause, you can make a number of seemingly contradictory statements.

EDIT: For the record, I am not claiming that I have in any way disproven that TWTA is sentient, but merely rebuffed a supposed proof that it necessarily is.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
....Go ask someone else to listen to your cries for attention.
LOL. Feel better now, twit?

Aren't you going to provide a physics lesson on the quantum nature -- or lack thereof -- of "time"? Or can't you find a link to post?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
I bet the devoutly faithful are impressed (or at least pacified).
Nobody likes it when you insult their intelligence like that... :rolleyes:

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk

LOL. Feel better now, twit?

Aren't you going to provide a physics lesson on the quantum nature -- or lack thereof -- of "time"? Or can't you find a link to post?

Franko you use to use this handle/personality to talk nicely while the Franko handle was harsh. Now that you are again using the Franko handle that one is talking nicely and this one is the harsh one.

The name calling is childish but that is just what I believe. Be well

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

LOL. Feel better now, twit?:rub:
Aren't you going to provide a physics lesson on the quantum nature -- or lack thereof -- of "time"? Or can't you find a link to post? You'd rather I post unsupported claims? I suppose you would like that because then we'd be on the same playing field, wouldn't we? Then you could post any sort of nonsense you please and nobody would challenge you with actual information.

If I, and others, don't get your "point" either you aren't explining yourself well enough or your point is incorrect. Frankly, I don't know anyone who appriciates your self-important attitude so, until you can show other wise....

:rub:

[Franko]

Mr. Hand said:
So far as I can tell this says that they are unwilling to discuss ontology, but are not 100% sure that materialism in one guise or another completely fills the bill. I may be wrong though.

Kind of an “Atheism of the Gaps”? :D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Franko you used to use this handle/personality to talk nicely while the Franko handle was harsh. Now that you are again using the Franko handle that one is talking nicely and this one is the harsh one. [edit by hammegk for spelng ... ]

The name calling is childish but that is just what I believe. Be well
I hope your other beliefs are closer to some meaningful reality. If not, have you chatted with a medical professional lately? Or changing therapists, maybe? Perhaps you can still be helped.

Best wishes for a rapid recovery from your delusional state.

However -- you think *I* am Franko? Truly, you honor this grasshopper. :)

[Franko]

hehehe .. Brother Hand you are too kind.

It is I who is honored by the comparison.

Perhaps we should just concede to him that we are BOTH figments of his imagination? ;)

[Upchurch]

I believe this is wraith's cue...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Franko


Perhaps we should just concede to him that we are BOTH figments of his imagination? ;)
Aw, I'm pulling for Upchurch being reality, although he does hide his imagination from us figments.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch,

Just so I am clear, are you agreeing or disagreeing?

The WHOLE (Consciousness) is greater than the SUM OF ITS PARTS (atoms).

Perhaps you missed the idea of
anthropomorphism: attributing human traits to no human things and
some word like
ethnocetric/anthrocentric: considering human to be 'spayshul'.

Consiousness is no big whoop, why should it be greater, you are making a huge assumption, philosphicaly many people like to think that consiousness is something really cool, but it is no more special than photosynthesis, which actualy is a whole lot cooler.

So you are pointing out a bais from the start, consiousness is no big deal, it can not be greater or lesser, it just is.

And why should we place more value on the product of a complex system than any of it's parts.

The watch wouldn't work so good if one small gear looses one small tooth.

So basicaly this is just silly, it is like saying that an elephants tusk is greater than the sum of it's parts.

Man, we are part of the circle of life, like you have such a bloated ego, let us watch the birds float on the water and wonder that they do not sink. ;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

I hope your other beliefs are closer to some meaningful reality. If not, have you chatted with a medical professional lately? Or changing therapists, maybe? Perhaps you can still be helped.

Best wishes for a rapid recovery from your delusional state.

However -- you think *I* am Franko? Truly, you honor this grasshopper. :)

Truely that would be a compliment for Franko, you two may know each other in the meat world, but hamme you seem the wiser of the two.

PS Quantum nature of time would require a quantum nature of space, this sounds like the GUT or somesuch nonsense. Time is most likely like temperature, a convinient artifact.

Perhaps Stimpy, or Ziggurat could come and speak on that, because time is more like this arbitrary thing defo\ined by these other arbitrary things, that some of us believe in the existance of the arbitrary stuff and other's don't
I do believe in the arbitrary stuff but gosh, if I am going to be a figment of somebodies imagination than I hope they have a very long life.

[csense]

If there is no knowledge of B within A, then you can not infer B from A.


A group of rectangles can form a square. None of the rectangles are themself square.

B has the property of four ninety degree angles.
A has the property of four ninety degree angles.

Do you think you can infer B from A?

[Eos of the Eons]

:D "Twit":D LOL. I always think of tweety when I see that :D


So you are pointing out a bais



it's "bias"



Question: Is any form of a 'central' nerve system a sort of brain? I mean, even crustacians have a nerve center.

[csense]

Originally posted by Dancing David


"...philosphicaly many people like to think that consiousness is something really cool, but it is no more special than photosynthesis, which actualy is a whole lot cooler."


But don't you see......if photosynthesis were actually cooler, then you wouldn't know it.

[Eos of the Eons]

Ha ha very funny. I bet bears think apples are a whole lot cooler than us. The apples don't try to fight back before they can eat it, and apples are good even if they are no longer 'alive' on the tree.


I still think humans are too arrogant for their own good:p

[csense]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I still think humans are too arrogant for their own good:p

In some ways, I think many humans are not arrogant enough:)

[Eos of the Eons]

:D As long as they don't think they are worth more than anything else just cause they're human, then they're alright IMO. Who's not arrogant enough? I don't know many without some kind of arrogance. I know mine, do you know yours? :D

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by csense


But don't you see......if photosynthesis were actually cooler, then you wouldn't know it.

Hush my mouff and dip me in honey...
but could you diagram that comment for me?

[Eos of the Eons]

Meaning...consciousness is cooler than photosynthesis cause we can then think about photosynthesis...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Meaning...consciousness is cooler than photosynthesis cause we can then think about photosynthesis...

Thank You, frequently I need people to explain movies to me too...

Sigh, it is nine pm do you know where your arrogance is?

[Eos of the Eons]

LMAO! :D

[csense]

...thankyew ...thankyew, goodnight ! :p

Not much traffic around here...hmmm, seems reasonable considering it's friday night..OMG :( what does that say about me :eek:

[Eos of the Eons]

Um, no, not at all, cause then it would say something about me...:p :roll:

[csense]

You're not going to believe this.

I was going to answer your post just now by starting with yea, yea, that's the ticket, we'll deny it by contradiction.. and then it hit me. A friend and I were discussing Saturday Night Live and we came to the topic of Jon Lovitz and neither of us could remember his one liner.
Ever have something right on the tip of your tongue and for the life of you, you can't remember. Heck, we even searched the net and couldn't find it. We tossed around ideas all night and later when she left we continued over the phone.

Then bam, there it is :)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I believe this is wraith's cue...

I believe you are right my friend. It seems like a case of disociative identity disorder DSM?:eek:

[hammegk]

DSM-IV is interesting reading. Are you sure a buddhist can understand it? If so, why do you think so? ;)

LOL.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk
DSM-IV is interesting reading. Are you sure a buddhist can understand it? If so, why do you think so? ;)

LOL.

That is a rather prejudice position and more so one used some time back by the Franko or wrath handle and not so much how you used this one. Evolution I guess.


Being your stated your position that a Buddhist may not be able to understand DSM-IV please
1. demonstrate why you believe this to be the case using facts and not anger and not prejudice.
2. Demonstrate it is you can know all Buddhist and what they may or may not know etc.

Your position/belief is a self defeating which is of course purely a baseless personal attack, baseless because I used DSM in reference to your many personas, right Franko?

You need to think out what you say and or think more rather then respond with blind emotion it makes you look silly.

Be well Franko, er hammegk, er Wrath…:confused:

I am sure your response will be of anger and or you will again tell the moderators I am picking on you again.


:rub:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


That is a rather prejudice position and more so one used some time back by the Franko or wrath handle and not so much how you used this one. Evolution I guess.
If your "guesses" in real life are as far from the mark as that babble, it must be interesting for you.


Being your stated your position that a Buddhist may not be able to understand DSM-IV please
1. demonstrate why you believe this to be the case using facts and not anger and not prejudice.
2. Demonstrate it is you can know all Buddhist and what they may or may not know etc.
After our last discussion I had hoped you might have considered the use of hyperbole. Apparently not.

I'm not talking to "all Buddhists", just to you. Can you see the distinction? Try discussing why you think you are competent to discuss DSM -- oh, you are telepathic -- yeah, that makes as much sense as you usually do.


Be well ... hammegk…:confused:
Yes you are confused, but thanks in any case.


I am sure your response will be of anger and or you will again tell the moderators I am picking on you again.
Nah, I don't recall ever pm'ing a mod "reporting" something, since I classify them even more out of touch with reality than you appear to be.

Guess you will have to pull your head out of the sand before I can give added advice. Just what I believe; be well; sayonara; vaya con dios ... blah blah blah...


And here is your :rub: returned with interest :rub: :rub: .... ;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Be well Franko, er hammegk, er Wrath…:confused:
I have no reason to think Franko, hammegk, and "Wraith" (I havent been using this board long to recognize that username) are the same person. Actually, for obvious reasons, I think its naughty to claim one member is not who he says he is... oh well, everyone has a right to have their own beliefs and opinions, anyone can be skeptical, I just dont think its nice to point fingers just yet.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by csense
You're not going to believe this.

I was going to answer your post just now by starting with yea, yea, that's the ticket, we'll deny it by contradiction.. and then it hit me. A friend and I were discussing Saturday Night Live and we came to the topic of Jon Lovitz and neither of us could remember his one liner.
Ever have something right on the tip of your tongue and for the life of you, you can't remember. Heck, we even searched the net and couldn't find it. We tossed around ideas all night and later when she left we continued over the phone.

Then bam, there it is :)


Crazy isn't it? Glad to have somehow inadvertantly helped with that! :cool:

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk

If your "guesses" in real life are as far from the mark as that babble, it must be interesting for you.


After our last discussion I had hoped you might have considered the use of hyperbole. Apparently not.

I'm not talking to "all Buddhists", just to you. Can you see the distinction? Try discussing why you think you are competent to discuss DSM -- oh, you are telepathic -- yeah, that makes as much sense as you usually do.


Yes you are confused, but thanks in any case.


Nah, I don't recall ever pm'ing a mod "reporting" something, since I classify them even more out of touch with reality than you appear to be.

Guess you will have to pull your head out of the sand before I can give added advice. Just what I believe; be well; sayonara; vaya con dios ... blah blah blah...


And here is your :rub: returned with interest :rub: :rub: .... ;)

After our last discussion I had hoped you might have considered the use of hyperbole. Apparently not.


My friend our last attempt at a conversation ended because you refused to answer any questions, remember? You became angry after I pointed out the flaws in your position, asked you several questions you returned with only personal attacks; remember?

As to considering the use of hyperbole/ exaggeration/ overstatement that is not my style so no I will not consider its use and leave it to you as part of your style.

I'm not talking to "all Buddhists", just to you. Can you see the distinction? [quote]

Really? Let us look at your statement.

[quote] DSM-IV is interesting reading. Are you sure a buddhist can understand it? If so, why do you think so?

now if you were only talking about me you would not have said Are you sure a buddhist can understand it? Can you see the distinction? :^)


I will post to you again the questions I asked concerning your statement, will you answer. I doubt it as you know you as this name or Franko simply avoid what you can not answer.

Being your stated your position that a Buddhist may not be able to understand DSM-IV please
1. demonstrate why you believe this to be the case using facts and not anger and not prejudice.
2. Demonstrate it is you can know all Buddhist and what they may or may not know etc.


Try discussing why you think you are competent to discuss DSM -- oh, you are telepathic -- yeah, that makes as much sense as you usually do.

Why would one have to be telepathic to be able to discuss DSM? Are you saying anyone who discuss DSM is a telepathic? How very strange, do you have any data or proof to support this belief?

You really need to relax and think before you make such silly statements.

Yes you are confused, but thanks in any case.

I am confused? I do not believe people that discuss DSM have to be telepathic.

As to my belief you are Franko, I have not said I have proof you etc other then styles and beliefs etc. It is a belief and one founded on observation.


Nah, I don't recall ever pm'ing a mod "reporting" something, since I classify them even more out of touch with reality than you appear to be.

Well if you are Franko you did if not you did not. Franko told hal bidlack I was being mean to him. I am not mean to anyone but it seemed asking that questions be answered and statements supported etc is seen by some as picking on, that is their belief I guess and I have to respect that but this is not the place for such a person.


As to my being out of touch with reality, that would be your statement of belief now may I ask they you support this statement with facts?

Guess you will have to pull your head out of the sand before I can give added advice. Just what I believe; be well; sayonara; vaya con dios ... blah blah blah...


As to my head being in the sand, that would be your statement of belief now may I ask they you support this statement with facts?:rub:


I hear the crickets warming up.. I ask for facts and personal attacks will follow but as to facts? :rub:
I hear the crickets warming up.

Be well my friend I hope you can get over this anger and be well and happy.

[Eos of the Eons]

Am I the only that finds: :rub:

Kinda kinky :p It's just in this thread a little too much :D

[Beanbag]

Statistically, it's quite possible that you can put all the parts for a watch together in a tin can, shake it a few times, and remove an assembled watch. It's also statistically possible for a pan full of water to freeze when you put it on a hot stove. There's an interesting discussion on how the Second Law of Thermodynamics appears to be nothing more than statistical chance in Chapter Two of the book "Perpetual Motion: The History of an Obsession" by Arthur W.J.G. Ord-Hume (yes, that's what's on the cover). ISBN 0-312-60131-X.

Neither is very likely to happen, though I've seen a few watches come across my bench that appear to have been assembled using the tin-can method. I suspect those batter-change kiosks in the shopping mall have a tin can specially reserved for just such an operation. Keeps me in business, so I can't complain too much.

Regards;
Beanbag

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


I hear the crickets warming up.. I ask for facts and personal attacks will follow but as to facts? :rub:
I hear the crickets warming up.

Be well my friend I hope you can get over this anger and be well and happy.

Thanks. Does .plonk. mean anything to you? TTFE.

At one time your posts seemed reasonable, but imo not lately. Have you chatted recently with your mental health provider about your meds/dosages?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk


Thanks. Does .plonk. mean anything to you? TTFE.

Hmmmm plonk, is that French for “hammegk will never answer a question or respond in a mature way”?:confused: :rub:

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by hammegk


Thanks. Does .plonk. mean anything to you? TTFE.

At one time your posts seemed reasonable, but imo not lately. Have you chatted recently with your mental health provider about your meds/dosages?

I guess to ask for facts to support your statement would be redundant and illogical as history shows you will supply them, answer questions or respond in any form other then to avoid logical, mature respectful and logical debate and will offer only silly childish personal attacks.

Do you really believe people here do not see though this?

Be well my friend.:rub:

[Dancing David]

Frater Pahansiri: I think that the issue is that hammegk, does not believe that he is franko, now wraith being frank , maybe. But hammegk is more cryptic than franko, they seem to have different styles.
Now I would be willing to belief that Jedi Knight is franko. While we are on outlandish theories...

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Frater Pahansiri: I think that the issue is that hammegk, does not believe that he is franko, now wraith being frank , maybe. But hammegk is more cryptic than franko, they seem to have different styles.
Now I would be willing to belief that Jedi Knight is franko. While we are on outlandish theories...

Hello Dancing David, Yes I know the issue and believe that if hammegk is not Franko he would not believe it he would know it..lol

I know what you mean and respect it, for me I see the styles as the same many times, hammegk seems to have started out a I said more calm and reasonable back when Franko was out of control.

Now Franko is back and being reasonable and hammegk is running with the name calling and personal attacks and not answering questions etc.

As you can see from our exchange I point out his mistakes and ask questions and his responses are only personal attacks and name calling, no substance.


Who knows we can only go on observations, they know for sure as does the site as to their ISP.

I will lose little sleep either way.
:)

P.S. did you call me a "Frater"? I may be a farter and a father but what ever a Frater is I will say I am not that. Well unless it mean something really good...:roll:

[Dancing David]

Frater is latin for brother. Peace Mr. P.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Be well my friend.:rub:
KINKY!

[Eos of the Eons]

:cs:

[Yahweh]

Children cover you eyes...







:rub: :rub: :rub:
:rub:
:rub: :rub: :rub: :rub:
:rub: :rub:

[Eos of the Eons]

http://burns.thefinaldimension.org/contrib/xerx/smileybreasts.gif








:eek:





http://216.40.249.192/s/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

[Yahweh]

Eos, have we derailed the thread yet?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Eos, have we derailed the thread yet?


mu

[Eos of the Eons]

:roll:

Well, since it just turned into an "oh yeah" thread with silly arguing without substance...I think it was derailed a long time ago

http://smilies.crowd9.com/contrib/ruinkai/biggrinangelA.gif

Anyone is welcome to get it back on topic again http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/ed/wink2.gif

:wink8:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Franko
in response to
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hand said:
So far as I can tell this says that they are unwilling to discuss ontology, but are not 100% sure that materialism in one guise or another completely fills the bill. I may be wrong though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kind of an “Atheism of the Gaps”? :D

LOFL! I missed your great comment until I happened to spot it today. :D


What I don't understand is that NOT ONE materialist/atheist has stepped up to proclaim " I'M 100% SURE MATERIALISM IS THE ANSWER ! "

Bunch of pu*sies, huh?


Anyone want to go for 99.99999%? That's "pretty sure", but --sorry BillHoyt -- it ain't 100%.

[Eos of the Eons]

What's a material/atheist? What exactly do you mean by materialism? Just so I know what they heck you all are referring to.

Thanks

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk


LOFL! I missed your great comment until I happened to spot it today. :D


What I don't understand is that NOT ONE materialist/atheist has stepped up to proclaim " I'M 100% SURE MATERIALISM IS THE ANSWER ! "

Bunch of pu*sies, huh?


Anyone want to go for 99.99999%? That's "pretty sure", but --sorry BillHoyt -- it ain't 100%.
Perhaps he's 99.9999<span style="text-decoration:overline">9</span>% sure...

Lets see...
x=99.999<span style="text-decoration:overline">9</span>
10x=999.999<span style="text-decoration:overline">9</span>
9x+x=99.999<span style="text-decoration:overline">9</span>
9x=999.999<span style="text-decoration:overline">9</span>-99.9999<span style="text-decoration:overline">9</span>
9x=900
x=100
He's 100% sure.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
What's a material/atheist? What exactly do you mean by materialism? Just so I know what they heck you all are referring to.

Thanks
Atheist - Person who has no religious beliefs. (In America, because 90% of the population is a Christian, Atheism has become synonymous with "Person who rejects the existence of God")

Materialist - A person who holds the Philosophical belief of Materialism

Materialism - The Philosophical belief that all things that exist and occur can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, nothing can exist outside the laws of physics, anything that fails to meet those 2 criteria cannot and does not exist.

:rub: :rub: :rub:

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Frater is latin for brother. Peace Mr. P.

Oh, thank you for that I learn something new every second.. thank you my friend.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh

He's 100% sure.

Bzzzst; to the actual question, wrong! (no overbar 9 in my question, notice?) Thanks for making a fool of yourself. Next?


Originally posted by Yahweh

Materialism - The Philosophical belief that all things that exist and occur can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena, nothing can exist outside the laws of physics, anything that fails to meet those 2 criteria cannot and does not exist.

Close, but again, not the actual question being discussed. The actual question is, "Which is "primary"?: mind (life) or matter (non-life). Say, "both" & you are a dualist of some stripe.

Thanks for playing though.

[Eos of the Eons]

Mind is matter. Every thought and memory originates from and is stored in this matter as matter. It doesn't exist as a separate thing from matter. Without the matter there is no life.

Life is matter. Matter is primary.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
Bzzzst; to the actual question, wrong! (no overbar 9 in my question, notice?) Thanks for making a fool of yourself. Next?
I was merely making an attempt at subtle math humor. Humor, its a word, it means funny. Do you make a habit out of killing jokes like that?

(And yes, I was entirely and completely aware that there was no "overbar" in your question, I was also quite aware you were going to point it out, I had intended that you'd make a joke out of it... instead it degredated into patronizing, "humor" at my expense, you should feel proud...)

Close, but again, not the actual question being discussed. The actual question is, "Which is "primary"?: mind (life) or matter (non-life). Say, "both" & you are a dualist of some stripe.
That's not the question I read...

Thanks for playing though.
You get a B- for effort, D for politeness.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Yahweh

You get a B- for effort, D for politeness.

Sorry, my bad. oops:o

I do seem a bit thinner skinned than usual. Whether even a smiley would have alerted me to 'joke-joke' I don't know. Anyway, thanks for your comment. :)


Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Matter is primary.

At 100% certainty? ;)

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by hammegk


At 100% certainty? ;)

Why do you ask? why the heck would anything non-life (a rock) be primary (you can't even eat a rock)? It's definitely necessary (secondary?) Because life depends on 'non' life to survive (water, air, etc.) But for there to be life you have to have life (in the form of matter).

[kuroyume0161]

Mind is matter and energy, a symphony of cascading electro-chemical charges moving through material neurons and nerves, causing chemicals to be released and neural connections to be made (initially, weaker, or stronger) or broken, never playing the same passage exacly twice.

I'm 100% certain that science cannot be 100% absolute. Absolutes are for ideals and religions. To understand the universe 100% is to be the entire universe in space, time, energy, and matter. Impossible.

You are combining one's certainty that the universe operates under quantifiable laws and our certainty about our descriptions thereof. Our descriptions can never be 100% since that would require infinitely precise and omnipotent measuring equipment, which are features precluded by known laws (quantum theory, for one).

Stop mixing reality with philosophical gibberish...

[Eos of the Eons]

:D Mind being matter is not philosophical. All you have to do is cut open your head to see it. Then when it ceases to work (dies) Then we can see how you no longer have a single thought.

You cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or feel without your brain.

That much is most certain. Why do some people have a hard time accepting reality?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Why do some people have a hard time accepting reality?
This can be answered using a bit a Philosophy and Psychology...

I just want to quickly define a few words:
Reality - the totality of all things that exist objectively
Perception - Recognition and interpretation, usually through stimuli

Some people just dont know what "reality" is made of. For instance, I believe everything in the universe that exists is made of matter or is physical property of matter, everything can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Other people might not accept that, usually the reasoning is "How do you explain consciousness". Obviously, consciousness is not a property of matter, does that imply that consciousness exists "seperately" from matter? That belief is call dualism.

There is a problem with perception: It occurs inside the brain. Some people deny the existence of matter, this is called Immaterialism.

There is another belief that "self" is the only reality. This is called Solipsism.

Then you have the "Its all an illusion, nothing exists, only my mind, everything is all an illusion". (I'd like to put 2 of these people in a room and let them argue with each other about which of them doesnt exist...)

(To clear up any problems someone may have in the future, all the Philosophical descriptions I gave are incompletely and not limited to what I wrote, its called "generalized analysis")

That's at least one reason why people have such a hard time just accepting reality, because its just so damn hard to know if what you believe is right.

I would continue, but at the moment I have other things in my house I have to attend to... Night all...

[csense]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Mind is matter and energy, a symphony of cascading electro-chemical charges moving through material neurons and nerves, causing chemicals to be released and neural connections to be made (initially, weaker, or stronger) or broken, never playing the same passage exacly twice.


IF it never plays the same passage exactly twice, then how can you assume an objective reality, or anything objective for that matter.

[Eos of the Eons]

Hmm, food for thought, thank you much Yahweh
.

For instance, I believe everything in the universe that exists is made of matter or is physical property of matter, everything can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

yep.




Obviously, consciousness is not a property of matter, does that imply that consciousness exists "seperately" from matter? That belief is call dualism.

There is a problem with perception: It occurs inside the brain. Some people deny the existence of matter, this is called Immaterialism.


Okay, I cannot deny the existence of matter and think that it exists without us there to think about it.

Consciousness not a property of matter? Sure it is, without your brain matter there would be no consciousness (I know most people disagree with me here big time).

The earth would stil be here with or without humans and their almighty consciousnesses.

I guess my reality is materialism and realism being matter exists with or without consciousness. Our bodies still exist until they are broken down in whatever way after we die. It can exist without our consciousness, but our consciousness can't exist without our brain matter.

So reality to me is easy to accept. I just accept that we exist until we die, and then we don't. The universe will still be here once we are long gone. Every species goes extinct eventually to be replaced by 'models' better suited to the environment at any given time. The only constant is change, and change things will-with or without our consciousness. The environment will also cease to exist altogether, and we along with it. But stars will still shine and life will live long wherever suitable elsewhere. That is how life lives on forever.

So yes, I believe the Universe has no end, and therefore no beginning, and life has always existed somewhere. When a planet gets a suitable environment there will be life suited to living on it in whatever form that can survive there.

[Eos of the Eons]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Mind is matter and energy, a symphony of cascading electro-chemical charges moving through material neurons and nerves, causing chemicals to be released and neural connections to be made (initially, weaker, or stronger) or broken, never playing the same passage exacly twice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by csense


IF it never plays the same passage exactly twice, then how can you assume an objective reality, or anything objective for that matter.

Brain development allows for pathways to be built and then followed many times. The great thing is that we can build on them or put a fork in the road, etc. That's the best part, we are not built to be closeminded, but you can choose to be. We can all choose our beliefs no matter what info we are exposed to. Our brains are malleable, but some pathways remain all our lives.

[csense]

Mind being matter is not philosophical. All you have to do is cut open your head to see it. Then when it ceases to work (dies) Then we can see how you no longer have a single thought.


This may be true, but all this shows is correlation, not causality


You cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or feel without your brain.

You also can not see without eyes, or hear without ears, or taste without a tongue, etc.,
Do you also feel that these are a cause of consciousness, or are they only correlated.

[csense]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


Brain development allows for pathways to be built and then followed many times. The great thing is that we can build on them or put a fork in the road, etc. That's the best part, we are not built to be closeminded, but you can choose to be. We can all choose our beliefs no matter what info we are exposed to. Our brains are malleable, but some pathways remain all our lives.

You're implying an experiencer apart from the experiences, and if I understand your philosophy correctly, then this is in contradiction to it.

Explain that

[Eos of the Eons]

You also can not see without eyes, or hear without ears, or taste without a tongue, etc.,

You can't see, hear, taste, etc. without your brain. Your brain's memory allows you to taste what you've already tasted in your dreams or whatever. You can even imagine very well using stimuluses you've experienced, but that is through memory and imagination. Can't do it without your brain matter.

I never said you needed your eyes to see, or your tongue to taste. I said you needed your brain.

[Eos of the Eons]

You're implying an experiencer apart from the experiences, and if I understand your philosophy correctly, then this is in contradiction to it.

Explain that.


How's that? Your experiences make pathways in your brain. Your experience makes up your imagination, etc. Your physical experiences through your senses changes your brain physically and constantly. Some pathways always remain (eyes to sight-unless physicall broken say by the retina being cut off due to trauma/blood clot).

What's contradictory?

[kuroyume0161]

Boy, I think you all misunderstood me. :)

When I say that the brain does not "play a passage twice", I mean, literally, there will never be the same exact connections (they are always changing somewhere, overall), same exact firings, in the same exact sequence, in the same exact strengths. I think that Chaos THEORY supports this undeniably. The brain is a dynamic organ of nearly incalculable complexity (unlike the heart, whose muscles synchronize on a rhythmic pattern unless abnormal conditions exist - such as arrhythmia).

Of course, the brain is a material organ. Mind is a phenomenon of the brain caused by its structure and dynamicity.

My previous message is directed at our enigmatic friend, hammegk, especially the "philosophy" part.

csense, you're being foolish. Just because the brain does not play the same passage twice has no relation to our ability to reason, understand, and observe. Your argument has no merit.

In totality, the brain is a complex organism which exhibits chaotic patterns. But, this doesn't mean that there aren't centers of memory, instinct, visual processing, and so forth (areas of order to some degree). Analogously, the workings of the entire planet Earth are chaotic and impossible to predict totally (there will never be the exact same occurence over the planet twice, ever, unless time skips or something). But, you can still follow and predict more local behavior, which can be very regular.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


You can't see, hear, taste, etc. without your brain. Your brain's memory allows you to taste what you've already tasted in your dreams or whatever. You can even imagine very well using stimuluses you've experienced, but that is through memory and imagination. Can't do it without your brain matter.

I never said you needed your eyes to see, or your tongue to taste. I said you needed your brain.

Maybe a better statement would be that you cannot see, taste, touch, hear, etc. without a brain and a set of appropriate sensory organs connected to it.

Directed to csense:
It has been quite satisfactorily shown over the past several hundred years that it is not our eyes alone that see, but that they convey the patterns of external light impinging upon the retina through the lens and cornea to the brain through the optic nerve. Our ability to "see" is more a process of the brain than the sensory organ that transports the information to it.

Compare this to a digital camera. The lens focuses the incident light onto a set of CCDs (lens and retina of the eye). Without circuitry to assemble the individual pixel elements coherently and somewhere to store them, there is no observation, only a transient process of continuously capturing (and forgetting the pattern of) light. In a digital camera, this is electronic logic circuitry and memory. Much simpler than the brain, but somewhat analogous.

The brain, alternatively, processes the elements into an image and then a myriad of deeper processes analyze it (facial recognition, distance determination, relative positioning, focus, symbolic interpretation, and so on, etc.). If there was a seperate "observer", why would all of our studies of brain activity during visual observation show such high levels of it? This so-called "observer" would surely take the processed image and do all of the analytic work on it, leaving the brain free for other tasks. This is not the case.

Kuroyume

[whitefork]

With regard to the identification of Hammegk and Franko, I have to disagree.

Analysis of H's style indicates a high degree of probability that he is actually BillHoyt.

[Franko]

Eos of the Eons (Discordian):
Mind is matter. Every thought and memory originates from and is stored in this matter as matter. It doesn't exist as a separate thing from matter. Without the matter there is no life.

Life is matter. Matter is primary.

No … actually if you are reading this post then you are “God” and the universe and everyone else in it are just a figments of your imagination. There is no “matter”, only Mind – your mind. Your memory doesn’t originate from “matter”, there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter” when the boredom and isolation of Solipsism became to great for you to bear.

… Unless you have some logical evidence that indicates otherwise???

[Upchurch]

If the universe is, in fact, the imagination of one individual, then investigation of it is moot. If we assume that solipsism is true, then why bother, other than for the solipists own amusement? On the other hand, if we assume that solipism is not true, then exploration and investigation of the universe has some meaning.

So, instead of invalidating all philosophical and scientific discussion and sitting on our hands, why don't we just assume that solipism is false. Shall we?

[Franko]

Upchurch:
If the universe is, in fact, the imagination of one individual, then investigation of it is moot.

Really?

Even if You are that individual?

I mean, I could see how it might be a moot point from my mere figmentary POV, but I don’t see why You would consider it a moot point?

Ohh well, perhaps it is just best if you don’t think about it too much? Maybe it’s better if you just pretend that it will all be over one day when you “cease to exist”?

After all, curiosity killed the cat. Perhaps the knowing of some truths are inherently non-beneficial?

If we assume that solipsism is true, then why bother, other than for the solipists own amusement?

And who else’s amusement do you normally bother for Mr. Altruist?

On the other hand, if we assume that solipism is not true, then exploration and investigation of the universe has some meaning.

Please explain? How is the universe ANY more meaningful is Solipsism is false?

Is that kind of like when the Christians tell me if their personal philosophy is false then the entirety of existence is meaningless?

So, instead of invalidating all philosophical and scientific discussion and sitting on our hands, why don't we just assume that solipism is false. Shall we?

So, instead of invalidating all philosophical and religious discussion and sitting on our hands, why don't we just assume that Atheism/Materialism is false. Shall we?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
:D Mind being matter is not philosophical. All you have to do is cut open your head to see it. Then when it ceases to work (dies) Then we can see how you no longer have a single thought.

You cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or feel without your brain.

That much is most certain. Why do some people have a hard time accepting reality?

This is the philosophy forum EoE, so the fact that the only data point that any individual has is in a material body, is well.... immaterial. Since there is no way to step outside of the system and definitivly prove that matter is primary, well... in philosophy they have a different standard of evidence.

So while we can ask for evidence of mind out of body, well then they can ask for what's outside the universe. And so it goes....

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


Really?

Even if You are that individual?

I mean, I could see how it might be a moot point from my mere figmentary POV, but I don’t see why You would consider it a moot point?It would be especially moot if I were the individual. In such a case, I'm not talking to "Franko". I'm talking to an imaginary character that is only saying what I imagine him to say. In essense, I would be talking to myself. That might give some insight into my own psychology, but not about the nature of the world around me. It would be arbitrary and maliable to my own whims.
Please explain? How is the universe ANY more meaningful is Solipsism is false?Because it would no longer be based on the solipist's personal whims and imagination. There would then be at least a chance of some objective aspect to the universe that is applicable to all of us.
So, instead of invalidating all philosophical and religious discussion and sitting on our hands, why don't we just assume that Atheism/Materialism is false. Shall we? I wasn't really talking about athiesm or materialism, which aren't the same thing, of couse. Care to explain how atheism or materialism removes objectiveness from the universe?

Besides, didn't you used to tout Logical Deists as the "ultimate materialists"? Are Logical Deists no longer materialists?

edited to add:
Alternatively, are you now trying to argue that solipism is true?

[kuroyume0161]

Wow! Once we start arguing about the validity or merits of solipsism, we might as well end the discussion. My readings show that such a philosophy has been rather well destroyed logically and by observation.

Philosophy or not, musings on possibilities and hypothetical extra-universal properties have no relation to reality unless they have evidential support. Even if there were only solipsism (and in which individual does it actually reside, if not all in a "universal consciousness" scheme), the observations thereof still follow a regular pattern which can be quantified and qualified closely enough to support a structure of theories to describe it. In other words, this so-called solipsism is not boundless and omnipotent. It is restrained, it appears from all available evidence and observation, by a framework which simulates a universe acting apart from it. So, to presume solipsism is to add unnecessarily and we know to what this conclusion leads.

Additionally, to invoke the mind as creator and arbitor of the universe contradicts the fact that there was a time when no sentient mind observed it - at least one is not plausible under our current theories of the early universe. How could the universe exist then? "Last Thursdayism" has no philosophical, logical, reasonable, or scientific underpinning from which to claim validity. Solipsism is very much akin to that philosophy. The "reality-based-on-observer" musings related to quantum theory were nothing more than that: musings. It is well established that, yes, when a tree falls it makes a sound even if no one hears it. The laws of the universe exist separately from the observer.

Added:

And I must add that all available evidence and careful (i.e.: scientific) observation points to an observer bound by these same laws. The observer is not outside the system, but resides within it and is subject to what is capable of it. Solipsism necessarily incurs an observer beyond the universe (since the universe is nothing more than the figment of the mind in which it resides).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
....My readings show that such a philosophy has been rather well destroyed logically and by observation.

....

Interesting. Got a couple of cites? My readings so far haven't, although logic points that way.

Best I can do so far is by gentlemens' agreement -- you exist, I exist, etc. Solipcism seems a negative-sum game imo.

[Franko]

Upchurch:
[Solipsism …]It would be especially moot if I were the individual. In such a case, I'm not talking to "Franko". I'm talking to an imaginary character that is only saying what I imagine him to say. In essense, I would be talking to myself. That might give some insight into my own psychology, but not about the nature of the world around me. It would be arbitrary and maliable to my own whims.

Sure … whatever you say. ;)

Because it would no longer be based on the solipist's personal whims and imagination. There would then be at least a chance of some objective aspect to the universe that is applicable to all of us.

Ahhh …

… it’s all Relative in any event.

I wasn't really talking about atheism or materialism, which aren't the same thing, of course. Care to explain how atheism or materialism removes objectiveness from the universe?

Atheism/Materialism removes consciousness from the universe and without consciousness NOTHING is objective (or otherwise).

Besides, didn't you used to tout Logical Deists as the "ultimate materialists"? Are Logical Deists no longer materialists?

True Matter = Consciousness

Pseudo-Matter = What Materialist and Atheists consider Matter

edited to add:
Alternatively, are you now trying to argue that solipsism is true?

If I existed as a real entity I might be doing that.

---------------------------------------------------

kuroyume0161 said:
Wow! Once we start arguing about the validity or merits of solipsism, we might as well end the discussion. My readings show that such a philosophy has been rather well destroyed logically and by observation.

Really???

What specific observation were you referring to which destroys the philosophy of Solipsism?

Let me guess, ”My” observation of your wishful thinking?

Yeah, it certainly is easy to “discover” the “truth” when you just get to decide what is real and what isn’t all by yourself without really putting any thought into the “matter”.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

… it’s all Relative in any event. er... what's all relative?
Atheism/Materialism removes consciousness from the universe and without consciousness NOTHING is objective (or otherwise).well, first, no it doesn't. It just "removes" consciousness as something that is exists as an independent thing. Second, how does material consciousness mean no objectivity?
True Matter = Consciousness

Pseudo-Matter = What Materialist and Atheists consider MatterCare to back this up with some sort of evidence? Edited to add: Or rather, what do you base this definition on?
If I existed as a real entity I might be doing that. Do you not consider yourself a real entity?

[Franko]

well, first, no it doesn't. It just "removes" consciousness as something that is exists as an independent thing. Second, how does material consciousness mean no objectivity?

Well, first you would have to explain how we could measure the I.Q. of an Atom?

what do you base this definition on?

Which one?

Do you not consider yourself a real entity?

Do you consider me a real entity?

What is your evidence for this belief? I am curious as to what passes for “empirical evidence” in your imaginary little universe.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Franko, on the there is matter and it is controlled and created by TLOP. Vs now . There is no “matter”, only Mind



No … actually if you are reading this post then you are “God” and the universe and everyone else in it are just a figments of your imagination. There is no “matter”, only Mind – your mind. Your memory doesn’t originate from “matter”, there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter” when the boredom and isolation of Solipsism became to great for you to bear.

… Unless you have some logical evidence that indicates otherwise???

VS


Originally posted by Franko
The WHOLE (Consciousness) is greater than the SUM OF ITS PARTS (atoms).

But you just said there was no matter, no atoms meaning also no TLOP yet you have always said things like If TLOP controls the behavior of all matter then doesn’t that mean that TLOP controls your physical brain which is made of matter?

This is a direct contradiction of your there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter” ??

Also in direct contradiction is this statement

Originally posted by Franko ;
The Laws of Physics are responsible for all the “design” we see in nature/the universe – aren’t they?

What is it Franko, matter or no matter?

Here you again say that there is matter, atoms

Does that mean that the Laws of Physics are to complex to have “designed themselves”?

Are the Laws of Physics to complex to have “assembled themselves”?

Are the laws of physics omnipotent relative to you?

But again above you now say There is no “matter”, only Mind

Which is it?

there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter”

Vs

If TLOP controls the behavior of all matter then doesn’t that mean that TLOP controls your physical brain which is made of matter? How exactly are you reaching the conclusion that TLOP is any less “sentient” than “You” are?


And as for “all-powerful”, are you contending that TLOP is not “all-powerful”? Could you please elaborate?

Which is it?

[quote] Your memory doesn’t originate from “matter”, there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter” when the boredom and isolation of Solipsism became to great for you to bear.

Vs


No my friend, I am a fatalist. I believe that EVERYONE is obeying their Fate, and that includes the Atheists.

All I contend is that some people are aware that they are pawns of Fate, and some people are unaware of it.

You are going to do exactly what you are preordained (pre-programmed) to do, and there is nothing that you can do to resist, overcome, or stop it.

Which is it? when the boredom and isolation of Solipsism became to great for you to bear you start to imagine matter or what you said above?


preordained (pre-programmed) or boredom. One is a choice or reaction due to conditions i.e. boredom..

Do you know what you believe it changes so often.



If you remember in this very thread you said What you are saying sounds kind of like claiming the "matter" only exist when you are looking at it.

Which is a direct contradiction to

there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter”


Here is a huge contradiction.

You wroteThe Laws of Physics are what we know about the laws of Nature, but the fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that the laws themselves do not exist in reality. Surely they do.

But that is clearly a contradiction to

No … actually if you are reading this post then you are “God” and the universe and everyone else in it are just a figments of your imagination. There is no “matter”, only Mind – your mind. Your memory doesn’t originate from “matter”, there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter” when the boredom and isolation of Solipsism became to great for you to bear.

What is it, first you say surly TLOP and matter/ atoms are reality than you say just a figments of your imagination..

What is it? Do you know what you really believe?

Here again you contradict yourself.

[quote]If TLOP controls the behavior of all matter then doesn’t that mean that TLOP controls your physical brain which is made of matter?/quote]

Vs
there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter”


Over and over you state

You are made of atoms
TLOP controls atoms yada yada yada then you say

there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter”
…


I ask this all with respect and hope to have a respectful sharing conversation.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Well, first you would have to explain how we could measure the I.Q. of an Atom?I never claimed we could anymore than I ever claimed you could make a car out of an atom. Complex systems require complex configurations of many atoms.

Saying that a single atom is conscious or intelligent is like saying we could create an artificial intelligent robot out of a single copper atom and a single letter "a" for code.

Now how does material consciousness lead to the conclusion that nothing is objective?
Which one?Pardon my failure to use the plural form of "definition". I want to know what you base both your definitions of "True Matter" and "Pseudo-Matter" on.
Do you consider me a real entity?I do. Even if you turn out to Turing machine, I believe there is someone or something out there generating your posts. Do you not consider yourself to be a real entity?
What is your evidence for this belief? I am curious as to what passes for “empirical evidence” in your imaginary little universe. My evidence for the existance of something generating your posts are your posts. That they exist suggests that there is something there generating them.

Of course, it is possible that I am merely imagining your posts. However, as I mentioned above, I reject that possibility in practice out of the fruitlessness it implies. If it is the case that I am simply imagining your posts, then there is no sense in investigating the universe any further as I cannot trust my own senses.

[Franko]

Upchurch:

My evidence for the existance of something generating your posts are your posts. That they exist suggests that there is something there generating them.

Of course, it is possible that I am merely imagining your posts. However, as I mentioned above, I reject that possibility in practice out of the fruitlessness it implies. If it is the case that I am simply imagining your posts, then there is no sense in investigating the universe any further as I cannot trust my own senses.

Well there you go -- Existence is meaningless -- just like you imagine all those Atheists preaching.

You see, you were right all along. Don't you feel better now?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
No … actually if you are reading this post then you are “God” and the universe and everyone else in it are just a figments of your imagination. There is no “matter”, only Mind – your mind. Your memory doesn’t originate from “matter”, there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter” when the boredom and isolation of Solipsism became to great for you to bear.

… Unless you have some logical evidence that indicates otherwise???
Argument from ignorance...
shifting the burden of proof...
your premises are unfounded, your conclusion is unfounded...
Begging the question...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Well there you go -- Existence is meaningless -- just like you imagine all those Atheists preaching. Are you seriously arguing for solipism, specifically that I am the solipist? Do you believe that you do not exist?
You see, you were right all along. Except that I am rejecting solipism as unlikely and impractical.

Further, will you explain the basis of the definitions of "True Matter" and "Pseudo-Matter" you gave above? Or your claim that material consciousness means a universe with no objectivity?

[Franko]

Yahway:

Argument from ignorance...
shifting the burden of proof...
your premises are unfounded, your conclusion is unfounded...
Begging the question...

Said (Thought) the real entity to the figment of his imagination.

[Franko]

will you explain the basis of the definitions of "True Matter" and "Pseudo-Matter" you gave above?

True Matter = Consciousness = Gravitons = Souls
Pseudo Matter = Information exchanged by (between) consciousness = Energy

Or your claim that material consciousness means a universe with no objectivity?

Objective = Logical = Comprehensible = Understandable = Coherent = Consistent = Without contradiction

Does the matter perceive the universe as Objective Upchurch?

In what way can you empirically verify that an unseen parallel universe with no conscious observers is objective, or obeys objective laws? Do “Laws” exist without consciousness? Do universes exist without objective observers? What is your empirical evidence for this claim?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Said (Thought) the real entity to the figment of his imagination.
I dont understand what that means...

[Franko]

Sorry ... as a figment of your imagination I am of little assistence in the comprehension department.

Why don't you just explain your proof that "matter" really exists?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
True Matter = Consciousness = Gravitons = Souls
Absurd.

Your definition of matter is inaccurrate.

Your defintion of consciousness is vague, ill-founded.

I honestly have no idea where you pulled up gravitons at.

Your conclusion of souls is irrelevant, unfounded.

If A = B = C= D, then A = D, therefore Matter = Souls? This is an obvious logical fallacy.

Pseudo Matter = Information exchanged by (between) consciousness = Energy
Making up your own facts isnt a good way to support an arguement...

Objective = Logical = Comprehensible = Understandable = Coherent = Consistent = Without contradiction
Might as well try this out:
Cat = mammal = animal = reptile = lizard.
Therefore, Cats = lizards.

Does the matter perceive the universe as Objective Upchurch?
Reductio conditional, not a valid inquery (doesnt make much sense in the first place).

In what way can you empirically verify that an unseen parallel universe with no conscious observers is objective, or obeys objective laws?
That laws of Physics that exist around me exist on the other side of the world, they exist on Mars, they are the same and they exist everywhere. Anything that exists hasnt been empirically verified "obeys" the laws of physics. Welcome to rudimentary Conceptual Physics.

Do “Laws” exist without consciousness?
Here's a bit of Vector Geometry:
A +B = ABcos&theta;

That's called the law of Vector Addition. It is not conscious.

Do universes exist without objective observers?
Yes. Reality does not need to be observed to exist.

What is your empirical evidence for this claim?
I cant see my brain, but I do infact have a brain.

In reference to the bizarre form of Existential philosophy you are relating: I can see Bob, he's standing in front of me, therefore Bob exist. Bob is looking at whatever is behind me, therefore everything behind me exists.

Got anymore brain busters?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


True Matter = Consciousness = Gravitons = Souls
Pseudo Matter = Information exchanged by (between) consciousness = EnergyNo, no. I understand how you define these things, I'm asking what you base these definitions on.
Objective = Logical = Comprehensible = Understandable = Coherent = Consistent = Without contradictionAlso, what do you base these definitions on?
Does the matter perceive the universe as Objective Upchurch?Does what matter perceive the universe as objective? What matter are you referring to?
In what way can you empirically verify that an unseen parallel universe with no conscious observers is objective, or obeys objective laws? You've lost me here. What "unseen parallel universe"?
Do “Laws” exist without consciousness?Some laws definitely do not. Human legal laws, for instance, do not. Natural laws certainly don't seem to require consciousness. In fact, natural laws seem only to require a universe for existance.
Do universes exist without objective observers?I don't know about universes (plural), but our universe seems to have several billion years of past before we have records of conscious observers, let alone ones capable of objective observation.
What is your empirical evidence for this claim? The best one is background radiation and the increasing distances between stars. They suggest several billion years with of history. There isn't, however, any evidence of conscious and objective observers before their appearance on Earth. Do you have evidence that shows otherwise?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Absurd.

Your definition of matter is inaccurrate.

Your defintion of consciousness is vague, ill-founded.

I honestly have no idea where you pulled up gravitons at.:D Welcome to the Tenets of Logical Deism (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27173). You're reaction is the common one.

edited to add: Careful though. Franko puts L. Ron Hubberd to shame.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
...There isn't, however, any evidence of conscious and objective observers before their appearance on Earth. ...
Now if you would just define (or even appear to consider) what constitutes a "conscious & objective" observer, you might begin posting something that made sense.

Hey, I know. Maybe you could quote a dictionary definition! LOL.



Originally posted by Yahweh

That's called the law of Vector Addition. It is not conscious.
An interesting conjecture on your part, materialist. ;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Sorry ... as a figment of your imagination I am of little assistence in the comprehension department.
That reasoning is circular.

I dont believe you are a figment of my imagination.

Why don't you just explain your proof that "matter" really exists?
Arguement of ignorance...
Shifting the burden of proof...

By the way, if you have ever been a Freshman in College, your first Philosophy course (or at least mine was) is entitled "Problems Of Philosophy". I find this to be the most important course, it keeps all that naughty Philosophy from warping your pattern of thinking into, as described above, philosophical gibberish.

What is the first you learn Problems Of Philosophy 101: To explain things in terms of God is to explain exactly nothing (thank you Plato), to explain things in terms of "Its all an illusion" is to explain exactly nothing (thank you Philosophy Professors), to explain things in terms of unfalsifyable hypothesis is to explain exactly nothing (thank you Physics Professors).

Problems with Solipsism: Quite an amazing illusion, I am God but I am clearly not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. Quite an unusual illusion where everything that that I percieve can and is explained in terms of Materialistic Philosophy, nothing in my illusion exists outside of matter and phenomena.

Yes, I am perfectly capable of fathoming that I am a god and everything is an illusion, I'm also perfectly capable of fathoming that matter does not exist. (Nihilism, however, is a mystery to me...)

Problem of Materialism: I cant leap outside of reality and observe it, my perception is limited.

More problems with Philosophy: Philosophy is not a set of a laws that govern human behavior or reality.

I could go on all day, but I have reason to suspect you are making me into your little toy. I bow down to no one, I refuse to bow down.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Hey, I know. Maybe you could quote a dictionary definition! LOL.What is your problem with commonly head definitions of words? Why do they bug you so?
An interesting conjecture on your part, materialist. ;) Do you consider vector addition to be conscious or to have the potential to be conscious?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
An interesting conjecture on your part, materialist. ;)
Although I'm a "keep it simple" kinda guy (its always been my personal Philosophy that speaking over the head of a person isnt a good way to get your point across), I decided to go a step up from all that silly-nilly highschool Physics...

Although I dont know if Vector Geometry (actually I consider it a Calculus) is too much for Franko... it sure is neat though...

[Franko]

Upchurch:
I don't know about universes (plural), but our universe seems to have several billion years of past before we have records of conscious observers, let alone ones capable of objective observation.

Yeah, but how do you know that the “Big Bang” didn’t just create You and then you imagined everything else. Certainly that is a far more parsimonious answer.

So what is your compelling reason that Occam’s razor must be violated so grossly?

[Franko]

Yahway:
Problems with Solipsism: Quite an amazing illusion, I am God but I am clearly not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent.

Yep, just like when you dream at night. Or are you claiming that since you aren’t omnipotent or omnipresent in your dreams that dream-reality also has objective material existence beyond the confines of your mind?

Quite an unusual illusion where everything that that I percieve can and is explained in terms of Materialistic Philosophy, nothing in my illusion exists outside of matter and phenomena.

Just like in your dreams at night?

Wow, so now you have two “real material” universes you are claiming exist!!! Why don’t you imagine yourself taking some LSD and maybe you can single handedly make MWI true?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Upchurch:
I don't know about universes (plural), but our universe seems to have several billion years of past before we have records of conscious observers, let alone ones capable of objective observation.
------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but how do you know that the “Big Bang” didn’t just create You and then you imagined everything else. Certainly that is a far more parsimonious answer.
That answer is in no way parsimonious, its also completely irrelevant to what you quoted, the "what-if" scenario inherently flawed.

So what is your compelling reason that Occam’s razor must be violated so grossly?
Would you mind defining Occams Razor, I feel that our definitions are conflicting that thats causing all the confusion...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What is your problem with commonly head definitions of words? Why do they bug you so?
Bug me? No. Watch.

con·scious adj.

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.
Mentally perceptive or alert; awake:
Capable of thought, will, or perception:
Subjectively known or felt:
Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate:
Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful:
Especially aware of or preoccupied with.


observer

n. 1. One who observes, or pays attention to, anything;
2. One who keeps any law, custom, regulation, rite, etc.; one who conforms to anything in practice.
3. One who fulfills or performs; as, an observer of his promises.

4. A sycophantic follower. [Obs.] --Beau. & Fl.

Hmm, must be a homo sap, huh? ( I especially like the [Obs.] entry. ;) )

QED: The universe is comprised of matter and consciousness is a useless froth on reality. Yah, you da man!

Do you consider vector addition to be conscious or to have the potential to be conscious?
I haven't given the matter lots of thought. Try UCE for a -- possibly? affirmative -- answer, Yahweh for the converse.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Franko
Yep, just like when you dream at night.
Or I might be a brain in a vat...
I might be in the Matrix...
The Matrix might be in the Matrix...

A dream is a series of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations occurring involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep, a dream is not an "alternate reality".

I am not dreaming right now, I recognize my own sentience (this is known as Cognitive Psychology).

Or are you claiming that since you aren’t omnipotent or omnipresent in your dreams that dream-reality also has objective material existence beyond the confines of your mind?
I never stated nor implied that. Dreams do not exist objectively in reality anymore than ideas exist objectively in reality, I'd appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth, I'd appreciate it if you do not intentionally misrepresent my position.

Quite an unusual illusion where everything that that I percieve can and is explained in terms of Materialistic Philosophy, nothing in my illusion exists outside of matter and phenomena.
--------------------------------------------------

Just like in your dreams at night?
You're not even trying anymore. In my dreams, I can fly, this is physically impoosible. I can also shoot lasers out of my eyes, this action is clearly one that cannot be explained by Materialistic Philosophy.

No, its not like my dreams at all.

Wow, so now you have two “real material” universes you are claiming exist!!!
I dont know where that conclusion came from, please dont put words in my mouth, it is a terrible way to make an arguement.

Why don’t you imagine yourself taking some LSD and maybe you can single handedly make MWI true?
I could imagine, but "wishing" I was taking some LSD does absolutely nothing. Sorry, "wishing" things to be true does not make them true.

Do me a favor, never become a teacher of any kind (unless you can play a musical instrument, all across the country the Music programs are losing funding).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hammegk
I haven't given the matter lots of thought. Try UCE for a -- possibly? affirmative -- answer, Yahweh for the converse.
:bgrin: :wink8:

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko


Why don't you just explain your proof that "matter" really exists?

Franko,

I believe I have a way for you to prove your belief to all here. If you really do believe as you say then you will gladly take this challenge to demonstrate to us you are right. If you are right I will be the first to admit it.

I had offered this opportunity before and you chose at that time not to take and I believe just offered some personal attacks, I hope this time is different.

Here is the way you can prove that matter does not really exists and we and all things here are just figments of your imagination.



The plan;

Step one: imagine yourself not feeling any pain ( matter in not real so I guess you will not).

Take a needle and put it under a flame until it is red hot then stick it in your right eye.


Step one:

After that call your local TV news station and have them film you running out in front of a fast moving train..

If as you said there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter” nothing can happen to you as you can just control the figments of your imagination.

In fact also being there is no matter and then such no LOP you should be able to flay if you think hard enough and imagine it.

Have the TV crew film you flying into the train.


Strange that you believe we are figments of your imagination. Yet you name call and fight with figments of your imagination and demand they believe when you when they do not even exist. Oh well.

Somone who truly believes what they say and believe will be willing to prove it at all cost.

Will you? Do you really believe what you say you do?

:confused:

[Pahansiri]

http://www.mentalhospital.50megs.com/damn.jpg

Is this not where you go when you argue with figments of your imagination?

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by hammegk


Interesting. Got a couple of cites? My readings so far haven't, although logic points that way.

Best I can do so far is by gentlemens' agreement -- you exist, I exist, etc. Solipcism seems a negative-sum game imo.

B. Russell, "Our Knowledge of the External World."

B. Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy"

D.R. Hofstadter, "Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern"

(for starters - much of my reading in this area has been occasional and not indepth research, but I think that I have arrived at many of the same conclusions as those who have tackled this topic)

Solipsism may be "logically coherent", but is it unfalsifiable. Some definitions of God are similar. I would hold that anything unfalsifiable (and unevidential) is untenable.

Solipsism has the problem of time. There is a "recorded" past for each "individual" as well as an unforeseen future. Surely an unfettered solipsist would be able to replay any past event exactly and should have cognizance of future events. Again, this plays back to the absolute solipsist's characteristics: omnipotence and omniscience. Is there a solipsist whose retention of memory is so great as to be indistinguishable from any other time? Seems the limitations of the hardware (brain) are adequately demonstrated by the limitations of our memories.

Solipsism has the problem of death. Each person that dies adds to the total of those who weren't the solipsist. If we hold to the first problem, there has been no single person (or sentient being)who has lived forever. Or, we're back to "last-Thursdayism"; the solipsist has "imagined" all of history and only lives in the present.

Third is the construct required to "uphold" solipsism, akin to the Aristotlean view of the universe, that the "universe revolves around one mind". In the Aristotlean view, the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, and Milky Way hurled themselves about the Earth on a daily basis. After it was discovered that these "heavenly bodies" were at astronomical distances (and problems arose), absurdities surfaced in the Aristotlean view and it was abandoned for a more accomodating one (which has shown to fit the facts very well). A single solipsistic mind would then be the harbourer of all details of the universe - every atom, every molecule, every energy field, every motion of galaxies, planets, stars, every sequence of events comprising the entire existence of the universe. This, by definition, is a supreme omnipotoent, omniscient god. This is god incarnate (at least to the figments which call themselve sentient). Yet, still, the supreme god (anyone who would call themselves solipsist) cannot change an iota of reality, must play by the rules unerringly, has no control over even their own biological needs, involuntary actions, and eventual degradation. What did Mark Twain once say about good liars?

We can discuss perception and the eventual determination that each person can only accept "reality" as a series of such things into the subjective experience. But just like the refutation of the Creationist's claim that an eye cannot be "evolved", we can use the same argument as to why the "perceptions" of the sole mind are not ideal, pure, or exact. Perceptions are only what is necessary for the organism to exist, survive, and procreate (in a minimalist definition). This fits our limited perceptual accuity. There are many other species of animal that have far keener sensory organs than ours. Why could they not be the solipsist and we their figments? And there are far more things in "the heavens" and on the Earth than we can perceive. Why did the solipsist decide to imagine energy beyond that of human perception, even dangerous to it?

There are many problems with solipsism that involve myriads of unanswerable questions similar to "why are we here?". Great to ponder but useless to the more pressing needs of existence. There are no answers in solipsism, only ponderings which lead to no knowledge.

Kuroyume

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


Well there you go -- Existence is meaningless -- just like you imagine all those Atheists preaching.

You see, you were right all along. Don't you feel better now?

This is argumantation by comparison, one of Ian's favorite, you are all out of ideas so, you just make fun of people and say that they say things that they don't.

What is meaningless is you franko, solipism has no testable hypothesis. So more emoty words by the spin master. At least Jedi Knight was so stupid he was funny, you just lack meaning.

What happened did you decide to replace your TLOP car with a solipistic scooter?

By the way you are the Discordian, or contrarian, some of us are Erisans, but you misapply the discordian label consistently.

Have you read Modesitt's fiction, there darkness is order and chaos is light. Kind of funny.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


Yeah, but how do you know that the “Big Bang” didn’t just create You and then you imagined everything else. Certainly that is a far more parsimonious answer.

So what is your compelling reason that Occam’s razor must be violated so grossly?

Because you are making the un parsimonius assumption that the Big band You would care to create a universe with 10 to the seventieth power particles.

Ockhams Razor is just a tool, only an idiot uses only one tool, although we can imagine you brushing your teeth with a hammer.

You are getting into ontology again which is about as meaningful as republican ethic's debates.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko


Yeah, but how do you know that the “Big Bang” didn’t just create You and then you imagined everything else. Certainly that is a far more parsimonious answer.

So what is your compelling reason that Occam’s razor must be violated so grossly? Parsimonious in what sense of the word? The universe goes truckin' along for I-don't-know-how-many billions of years and then I come along and create everything? If that were the case, why can't I change aspects of the universe at a whim? Why can't I imagine the sky as green and it becomes green? Why can't I imagine that I can fly and fly? If the only bounds on reality is my own imagination, why can't I bend reality to my imagination?

The only way Occam's razor comes in to play in this possibility is to cut it out when considered against the possibility that universe developed as it appears to have and I'm just a very small part of it.

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Parsimonious in what sense of the word? The universe goes truckin' along for I-don't-know-how-many billions of years and then I come along and create everything?

Yep.

Except there was no truckin’ along for billions of years. You (the person reading this) came along and you began to imagine everything. That is how “the universe” got here.

If that were the case, why can't I change aspects of the universe at a whim?

Ohh, you’d have to talk to your subconscious about that one.

Why don’t you have complete and total control over your dreams at night? Are you denying that your mind is creating that reality as well?

Why can't I imagine the sky as green and it becomes green? Why can't I imagine that I can fly and fly? If the only bounds on reality is my own imagination, why can't I bend reality to my imagination?

Apparently reality is generated by your subconscious mind, and apparently you do not have complete control over your subconscious. Can you will the sky green in your dreams at night? I bet if you could do it “there” you could do it “here” as well … ?

The only way Occam's razor comes in to play in this possibility is to cut it out when considered against the possibility that universe developed as it appears to have and I'm just a very small part of it.

Yeah, but when you are the “very small part of it” is exactly when you are taking a dump all over poor William of Occam. It’s much more Parsimonious to believe that the person reading this post is the only thing to exist, and there is no way to prove it is otherwise … is there?

Hey but if you want to make a bunch of unfounded assumptions, don’t let me stop you. Perhaps you could imagine up some gremlins and fairies and unicorns? Maybe even a “God” for all of those imaginary Theists?

[Franko]

D.D.:
You are getting into ontology again which is about as meaningful as republican ethic's debates.

An Atheist taking a jab at the republicans? Hehehe … Why, how unpredictable!

Are you a communist D.D., or just a socialist? … or just a democrat?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

Yep.

Except there was no truckin’ along for billions of years. You (the person reading this) came along and you began to imagine everything. That is how “the universe” got here. You didn't answer my question. How is that more parsimonious? You are now postulating two universes. The first is the one that spawned the solipist. The second is the one that is imagined by the solipist. This second one is the one that has all the properties and attributes of what naturalists call the universe. Surely a single universe, having all the naturalistic properties and attributes, is more parsimonious than two, having the additional universe with unknown properties and attributes?

Instead of simplifying and uncluttering the situation, solipism complicates it by imposing an additional layer of reality that only surves to stress the importance of an individual.
Apparently reality is generated by your subconscious mind, and apparently you do not have complete control over your subconscious. Can you will the sky green in your dreams at night? I bet if you could do it “there” you could do it “here” as well … ?Pure conjecture. What do you base this premise on?

However, I can influence and control my dreams to an extent. The same technique does not work in the waking world. We, or rather I, can reject this premise through experience, which does not match your predictions based on solipism.
Yeah, but when you are the “very small part of it” is exactly when you are taking a dump all over poor William of Occam. It’s much more Parsimonious to believe that the person reading this post is the only thing to exist, and there is no way to prove it is otherwise … is there?There are, it appears. If the world were a solipist's dream, one would predict that certain events would be possible, as you have predicted above. Through experience, I, your proposed solipist, have shown that those predictions have not been demonstrated. Logically, we must either reject or modify the hypothesis of solipism.

Would you like to modify your hypothesis?

[Pahansiri]

Posted by Franko to Upchurch:
Yep.

Except there was no truckin’ along for billions of years. You (the person reading this) came along and you began to imagine everything. That is how “the universe” got here.

So let us apply a statement/request you said/made to Upchurch

Originally posted by Franko

What is your evidence for this belief? I am curious as to what passes for “empirical evidence” in your imaginary little universe.


I will not hold my breath waiting for evidence for this belief.

It is best to sit back and watch you change beliefs with the wind.


Posted by Franko to Upchurch:

Hey but if you want to make a bunch of unfounded assumptions, don’t let me stop you.


Hmmmm you mean one like
Yep.

Except there was no truckin’ along for billions of years. You (the person reading this) came along and you began to imagine everything. That is how “the universe” got here.


Posted by Franko to Upchurch:
Perhaps you could imagine up some gremlins and fairies and unicorns? Maybe even a “God” for all of those imaginary Theists?

Like a Goddess the one that you told us found you to be special?:rolleyes:

Posted by Franko to DD:
An Atheist taking a jab at the republicans? Hehehe … Why, how unpredictable!

Are you a communist D.D., or just a socialist? … or just a democrat?



Arguing with figments of your imagination again?

Get the net!!!!
:roll:

[Franko]

Upchurch:
You are now postulating two universes. The first is the one that spawned the solipist. The second is the one that is imagined by the solipist.

Apparently Atheists count different than normal people as well.

There is only one universe. The one you are imagining right now.

Or do you consider your dreams the “second universe”? Is that what you are talking about?

How many universes have you created (imagined)?

Pure conjecture. What do you base this premise on?

Say what? So now you are asking a figment of your imagination to clarify things for you? How do you imagine I would answer this?

Franko:
you are taking a dump all over poor William of Occam. It’s much more Parsimonious to believe that the person reading this post is the only thing to exist, and there is no way to prove it is otherwise … is there?

Upchurch:
There are, it appears. If the world were a solipist's dream, one would predict that certain events would be possible, as you have predicted above.

What event?

Can you prove that Solipsism is false or not?

If you can, I think you would have just done it by now. That tells “me” you can’t prove it.

Through experience, I, your proposed solipist, have shown that those predictions have not been demonstrated. Logically, we must either reject or modify the hypothesis of solipism.

Would you like to modify your hypothesis?

Hey Buddy, I am your figment, why don’t you just tell me what you want me to say, and then you can go back to pretending the universe and the “matter” is real?

[CWL]

Originally posted by Franko

Hey Buddy, I am your figment, why don’t you just tell me what you want me to say, and then you can go back to pretending the universe and the “matter” is real?

Hey Buddy, if you are my figment (i.e. I invented you), then who's figment am I (i.e. who invented me)?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

There is only one universe. The one you are imagining right now.

Or do you consider your dreams the “second universe”? Is that what you are talking about?No, you've postulated two universes. If I (or more correctly, the solipist) created this universe from my imagination, where did I come from? In your previous post, you postulated that there was something that created me, which must have taken place somewhere and that I, in turn, created the universe I now perceive. In your solipism hypothesis, how do you account for the solipist's creation if the solipist is not there to imagine the universe in the first place?
Say what? So now you are asking a figment of your imagination to clarify things for you? How do you imagine I would answer this?You're the one claiming solipism, not me. I'm not asking any figment of my imagination to do anything. I'm asking Franko the JREF poster to clarify. If you want to claim to be a figment of my imagination, you must back it up with something.
What event?

Can you prove that Solipsism is false or not?

If you can, I think you would have just done it by now. That tells “me” you can’t prove it.You made the prediction, based on the hypothesis of solipism that "I bet if you could do it “there” you could do it “here” as well". I can control the natural laws (e.g. fly without mechanical aid, defy conservation rules, etc.) in my dreams, but I cannot do these things when I am awake. Therefore, a consequence of your solipsism hypothesis is shown to be untrue. You must either alter your hypothesis of solipism or reject it.

edited to add: Just to spell it out, this is proof that the definition of solipsism that you are using in this argument is false. It is inconsistant with observed phenomena.
Hey Buddy, I am your figment, why don’t you just tell me what you want me to say, and then you can go back to pretending the universe and the “matter” is real? I reject your premise based on the above flaw. You are not a figment of my imagination.

[Franko]

Upchurch:
If I (or more correctly, the solipsist) created this universe from my imagination, where did I come from?

I would conclude that you originated from the same source as what you suppose the “Big Bang” originated from. The only difference is You are more parsimonious than an Entire Universe.

In your previous post, you postulated that there was something that created me, which must have taken place somewhere and that I, in turn, created the universe I now perceive. In your solipism hypothesis, how do you account for the solipist's creation if the solipist is not there to imagine the universe in the first place?

Well unfortunately since you have never been able to explain what caused the “Big Bang” I am unable to explain what caused your “Big Bang”. I would conclude that the answer to this question is to be found in the question – how do you account for the universes creation if the universe is not there to create the universe in the first place?

Or you could ask -- how do you account for the laws of physics creation if the laws of physics are not there to create the laws of physics in the first place?

You're the one claiming solipism, not me. I'm not asking any figment of my imagination to do anything. I'm asking Franko the JREF poster to clarify. If you want to claim to be a figment of my imagination, you must back it up with something

But that is the problem … if I truly am a figment of your imagination, how exactly would “I” be able to prove it to you? Wouldn’t You have to make that determination yourself?

You made the prediction, based on the hypothesis of solipism that "I bet if you could do it “there” you could do it “here” as well". I can control the natural laws (e.g. fly without mechanical aid, defy conservation rules, etc.) in my dreams, but I cannot do these things when I am awake. Therefore, a consequence of your solipsism hypothesis is shown to be untrue. You must either alter your hypothesis of solipism or reject it.

Are you claiming that you have full and complete control over the reality in your dreams? Come, come now. You aren’t trying to deceive this little figment – are you?

Just to spell it out, this is proof that the definition of solipsism that you are using in this argument is false. It is inconsistant with observed phenomena.

How so? I contend that if you are omnipotent in your dreams (and I don’t think you are) that you would be omnipotent here (if Solipsism were true). But I don’t think you have such complete control over your dreams.

Have you ever had a nightmare, been scared, or angry, or nervous, or startled in a dream? How can that be if you are omniscient in your own dreams?

You are not a figment of my imagination.

I have no reason not to believe you, however I still don’t see the reason why you don’t believe it. I do not follow the logic that leads you to conclude that the matter is more real than you are.

[Pahansiri]

Symptoms of Scitofreania



:eek:Feelings of being controlled by outside forces, ( The Goddess, then TLOP now figments of his imagination )

:eek: hearing, seeing, smelling or feeling things which are not there, (figments of ones imagination ) (hallucinations such as arguing with figment of ones imagination) and
:eek:unusual beliefs, (delusions).
:wow2: I think we have a Bingo here.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

I would conclude that you originated from the same source as what you suppose the “Big Bang” originated from. The only difference is You are more parsimonious than an Entire Universe.

Well unfortunately since you have never been able to explain what caused the “Big Bang” I am unable to explain what caused your “Big Bang”. I would conclude that the answer to this question is to be found in the question – how do you account for the universes creation if the universe is not there to create the universe in the first place?Oh, but that isn't true. I have explained what caused the Big Bang or, at least, the most current theory based on observable natural phenomona. It was in this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870099647#post1870099647) where I gave you information on quantum fluctuations and cosmic inflation. Remember? You even responded to the post, so I know you've read it. Even if you don't, it's still there for you to review.

However, this puts your answer to the question of the origins of the solipsist in question. As it stands, you are claiming that the solipsist's origins are from quantum fluctuations resulting in dramatic cosmic inflation. However, this theory doesn't explain the existance of a conscious, or even subconscious, entity (i.e. the solipsist). It only explains the existance of matter/energy and spacetime. That is, unless you then conceed the naturalistic progression of universal development and organic evolution which then produced a multitude of conscious entities. One would assume that this includes the solipsist.

Which means, by the time the solipsist exists to imagine the universe, the naturalistic universe has already been in place for something like 15 billion years, give or take. Thus leading again to solipsism not being as persimonous as the single universe materialistism/naturalistisim (or whatever you want to call it).
Or you could ask -- how do you account for the laws of physics creation if the laws of physics are not there to create the laws of physics in the first place?The laws of phsyics are a consequence of the universe, not the creator of it. The alternative results in the paradox you've outlined above.
But that is the problem … if I truly am a figment of your imagination, how exactly would “I” be able to prove it to you? Wouldn’t You have to make that determination yourself? It's a circular argument, as is solipsism itself. Since it is mine to determine and decide, I reject it as impractical and improbable by the reasons I gave waaay back.
Are you claiming that you have full and complete control over the reality in your dreams? Not at all. I'm claiming I have defied gravity by flying in my dreams through conscious decision alone. Further, I have defied conservation of matter and energy by willing objects into existance in my dreams. I can do neither of these when awake. Therefore, your prediction that "I bet if you could do it 'there' you could do it 'here' as well" is shown to be false, as is your definition of solipsism.
contend that if you are omnipotent in your dreams (and I don’t think you are) that you would be omnipotent here (if Solipsism were true). But I don’t think you have such complete control over your dreams.I am not claiming to be omnipotent in my dreams. I am claiming to have more power over "the rules" in my dreams than I do when awake. As such, I conclude that the waking world is not one of my own creation as my dream world certainly seems to be.
I do not follow the logic that leads you to conclude that the matter is more real than you are. I would be surprised if you had considering I have not made this argument. Nor would I, as a matter of fact. I consider matter to be as real as I am.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


An Atheist taking a jab at the republicans? Hehehe … Why, how unpredictable!

Are you a communist D.D., or just a socialist? … or just a democrat?

The correct answer is that democrats don't worry about ethics, so they don't have senseless debates about them the way the republicans do!

Also please note that I am not an athiest, I am a pagan nihilist buddhist. So while I feel that atheism has it's merits, I am also a polytheist and an animist. Lots of ist there huh?

Party wise I am independant, or at least I used to be, I am not sure you even register that anymore.

Communism works on the small scale but has problems at anything involoving large numbers of individuals. I am a free market socialist, in that I think that pure socialism looses the benefits of a free market.

I believe in representative democracy, I guess I am a democrat. I am also part of the Matriarchal Vision Movement. ;)

[Franko]

D.D.:
The correct answer is that democrats don't worry about ethics, so they don't have senseless debates about them the way the republicans do!

Also please note that I am not an athiest, I am a pagan nihilist buddhist. So while I feel that atheism has it's merits, I am also a polytheist and an animist. Lots of ist there huh?

Sure, whatever you say. Although in my mind you are just another predictable Discordian.

Party wise I am independant, or at least I used to be, I am not sure you even register that anymore.

Communism works on the small scale but has problems at anything involving large numbers of individuals. I am a free market socialist, in that I think that pure socialism looses the benefits of a free market.

I believe in representative democracy, I guess I am a democrat.

Why do you suppose that Communism has problems on a large-scale?

What do you consider the primary difference between Communism and Socialism?

How is Socialism anything more than you forcing your “superior” view and opinions on others who do not consider your views and opinions “superior”? How is socialism democratic?

I am also part of the Matriarchal Vision Movement.

I’m not sure what that is? Would you care to elaborate?

[Franko]

Upchurch.:
Oh, but that isn't true. I have explained what caused the Big Bang or, at least, the most current theory based on observable natural phenomona. It was in this post where I gave you information on quantum fluctuations and cosmic inflation.

Yes, but that contradicted what you had said previously and I pointed that out to you.

If there was NOTHING, not even time then how could there be any quantum fluctuations? Doesn’t quantum fluctuations imply the existence of quantum mechanics? Are you now claiming that quantum mechanics and the laws of physics existed prior to the “Big Bang”? What is your evidence for THIS claim?

However, this puts your answer to the question of the origins of the solipsist in question. As it stands, you are claiming that the solipsist's origins are from quantum fluctuations resulting in dramatic cosmic inflation.

Nope.

I don’t know anything about any “quantum fluctuations”, and as far as I know there isn’t any such thing as “cosmic inflation”. The only thing that actually exists (the only thing that has EVER existed) is the mind that is reading this post this very instant.

However, this theory doesn't explain the existance of a conscious, or even subconscious, entity (i.e. the solipsist). It only explains the existance of matter/energy and spacetime. That is, unless you then concede the naturalistic progression of universal development and organic evolution which then produced a multitude of conscious entities. One would assume that this includes the solipsist.

No, I think you have contorted yourself into a circle again.

There is no “universe”. All that exist is you and your fantasies about “the matter”.

Which means, by the time the solipsist exists to imagine the universe, the naturalistic universe has already been in place for something like 15 billion years, give or take. Thus leading again to solipsism not being as parsimonous as the single universe materialistism/naturalistisim (or whatever you want to call it).

It sounds more and more like you are simply trying to rationalize something that you would prefer not to think about too deeply?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


Sure, whatever you say. Although in my mind you are just another predictable Discordian.

If it makes you feel better to say so, I don't want to rain on your parade. I feel that you are the discordian but hey, what is a label for? I prefer erisian, because my goal is not to cause discord but to find the balance.


I suppose I could answer the following questions to the firther derailment of the thread, but I won't. Thanks anyway.
Why do you suppose that Communism has problems on a large-scale?

What do you consider the primary difference between Communism and Socialism?

How is Socialism anything more than you forcing your “superior” view and opinions on others who do not consider your views and opinions “superior”? How is socialism democratic?



I’m not sure what that is? Would you care to elaborate?

The Matriarchal Vision Movement is part of Feminazi Cultural terror. Which according to some notable kooks is what domestic violence services are about.

[Franko]

D.D.:
If it makes you feel better to say so, I don't want to rain on your parade. I feel that you are the discordian but hey, what is a label for? I prefer erisian, because my goal is not to cause discord but to find the balance.

Well then, I would say you are worshipping the wrong Goddess.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


-snip-

If there was NOTHING, not even time then how could there be any quantum fluctuations? Doesn’t quantum fluctuations imply the existence of quantum mechanics? Are you now claiming that quantum mechanics and the laws of physics existed prior to the “Big Bang”? What is your evidence for THIS claim?

-snip-


It is an errouneous suggestion to say that materialism says that there was Nothing prior to the Big Band, first materialism as a philosphy should limit itself to the scientific method, no way to test any hypothesis about the hall before the Big Band started to play. Second nothing from nothing. So some materialists might argue that since there is 'something' in our universe, it came from 'something'. Like an infinite set of regressive universes.

Well franko, there is no meaningful way to talk about what there was prior to the Big Band starting to play. But given the assumption of isotropy, which is one one the assumptions that the current scientific model makes, it would not be unreasonable to speculate that the LOP and quantum mechanics were in the hall when the Big band began to play. In string and inflationary theory, the potential exists for LOP to exist prior to the Big Band, and some of the parameters are set at the time the Music Starts to Play.

But evidence, seems your short on that suit yourself.
Speculation is just speculation.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


Well then, I would say you are worshipping the wrong Goddess.

Follow is different from adore, balance can come from the fluctuations between order and chaos, they are value neutral terms, order is not good, chaos is not good. One rests within the other. OOOK, worship what an old fashioned notion, adoration , invokation, much more user friendly. Worship implies that whole hierarchy thing, up/ down, such sillyness.

Day destroys the night, night devides the day, try to run , try to hide, break on through to the blah blah blah.

[Franko]

D.D.:
Follow is different from adore, balance can come from the fluctuations between order and chaos, they are value neutral terms, order is not good, chaos is not good. One rests within the other. OOOK, worship what an old fashioned notion, adoration , invokation, much more user friendly. Worship implies that whole hierarchy thing, up/ down, such sillyness.

Day destroys the night, night devides the day, try to run , try to hide, break on through to the blah blah blah.

Spoken like a true Discordian.

[Upchurch]

Franko,

I notice that you've not responded to my refuting your solipsism. Is it too much to hope that you've accepted my proof?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko

If there was NOTHING, not even time then how could there be any quantum fluctuations? Doesn’t quantum fluctuations imply the existence of quantum mechanics? Are you now claiming that quantum mechanics and the laws of physics existed prior to the “Big Bang”? What is your evidence for THIS claim?There is no "prior" to the beginning of the universe. I've explained this before (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26322).
I don’t know anything about any “quantum fluctuations”, and as far as I know there isn’t any such thing as “cosmic inflation”.Well, it cosmic inflation is just a theory, but it is the best model to date. As for not knowing anything about quantum fluctuations or cosmic inflation, please refer to the links I've given you above. If you need more informatin to understand the concept better, I suggest googling it.
The only thing that actually exists (the only thing that has EVER existed) is the mind that is reading this post this very instant.And how do you know that mind exists at all, let alone that it is the only thing that ever existed?
There is no “universe”. All that exist is you and your fantasies about “the matter”. Please explain how you have disproven the existance of the universe and all matter in it.
It sounds more and more like you are simply trying to rationalize something that you would prefer not to think about too deeply? Perhaps. However, it sounds to me like that is what you are trying to do, especially with the above off-hand denial of quantum fluctuations and cosmic inflation. If you wanted to truly dismiss it, you must first demonstrate it's flaws. Simply denying any understanding of it isn't relevent to it's truth or lack thereof.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Franko


No … actually if you are reading this post then you are “God” and the universe and everyone else in it are just a figments of your imagination. There is no “matter”, only Mind – your mind. Your memory doesn’t originate from “matter”, there is no “matter” you just imagined “matter” when the boredom and isolation of Solipsism became to great for you to bear.

… Unless you have some logical evidence that indicates otherwise???


Um, we have a brain, and it works. That's logical evidence. Take it away and you don't get bored because you don't exist without it.


Yes, your memory originates from matter. Without the matter you have no memory, you have no thoughts, and no senses.

Without matter you cannot see, touch, taste etc. Your sensory organs are useless without your brain matter. Your brain is your mind.

You must be god if you can exist without your matter. Ain't that what gods are? Existing without being 'matter'?

(will go read rest of posts now)

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
http://www.mentalhospital.50megs.com/damn.jpg

Is this not where you go when you argue with figments of your imagination?


LMAO!! I wish that's where people went they argue with figments of their imagination. They don't have to go though, unless they are a danger to themselves or others in this province. That means all the nutcases are free to roam, or post, or ;) :D

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


Spoken like a true Discordian.

Sorry I like RA Wilson, but never put much stock in the Discordians, I do work frequently to build systems and bridges, so I think there is a balance.

As you say "whatever".

[CWL]

Franko,

Seriously:

Originally posted by CWL


Hey Buddy, if you are my figment (i.e. I invented you), then who's figment am I (i.e. who invented me)?

Who invented who? Who are you saying was the primary inventor?

[MRC_Hans]

Wheee, I see Franko is back with the cut-and paste. Well, lotsa material to cut and paste from, and it won't matter so much where you take it, since it's all basically the same.

The one-trick pony rides again, yeehaw!

Hans :rolleyes:

[uruk]

Spoken like a true Discordian.

Isn't a discordian a really annoying musical instrument.
Like "the party was rockin' untill my uncle lou brokeout
his discordian and played The Lady from Impaniema.

[CWL]

Originally posted by uruk


Isn't a discordian a really annoying musical instrument.
Like "the party was rockin' untill my uncle lou brokeout
his discordian and played The Lady from Impaniema.

[know-it-all]

Actually that would be "until my uncle Lou broke out his discordian and played The Girl From Ipanema".

[/know-it-all]