100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: What makes sense of sense? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Sat 11/21/09 12:04 AM
|
|
Yep I read that in an earlier post. Sorry but I think they are all grouped under the sense of touch. It is very complex sense with lots of different nerves but still just the sense of touch. And please do not use the phrase "is accepted by modern science". Because science is not a thing that accepts. Scientists are, and even then you cannot speak for everyone. If you want to provide a scientific source to back up your argument fine, but don't just say all of science supports my view. Read this short article from the Department of Psychology at Glasgow University. http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/best/senses.html Here's the full article... http://meditation24-7.com/page18/page20/page20.html Who is Bruce Durie? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Durie Okay, so my first link was wrong. There are at least 21 different senses. It won't be the last time I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The way I look at it, senses create for an individual a basis of physical orientation. The senses create impulses from stimuli, and they eventually get read by the soul. The soul builds a mental image of its world, (call it holographic if you like, but I won't, for the simple reason of my not knowing what "holographic" means) and this mental image is neither the soul, nor the sum of the stimuli-cum-impulses. It is an intermediary, which has been created by the soul because it's easier to handle and govern and predict than the actual world. The mental image of the world is a generalization of the world, a simplified system that is manageable by the individual's mental capacity. So when all senses stop functioning, and no stimulus gets detected by the soul, the mental image of the world, the preditcive ability of the individual, the Golem of abstract machiation, still lives on in his mind (predictably; I've never been in that situation, thank gods). I think it's your question that needs to be re-thought; you have to expand the number of players, instead of forcing every game role on the existing players. You have to create the concept of a stimulus-built but thought- and soul-manipulated model, instead of forcing the functions of this model on the soul or on the stimulus-impulse mechanism. If you accept the above, then it's easy to see that a person who attained a grasp on the world, not necessarily even a good grasp, will keep on being aware of things even when all his senses stop sending signals to his soul. If, however, a person loses his or her senses before a mental image has been built, then that person has no mental Golem, so to speak, therefore for him the world, himself, or anything else, does not exist. He is not perceiving whatsoever. He is dead alive. A bit in a different way than one in an unconscious state. The dead alive person has his consciousness centre working, it is not blacked out like the mind of a faint. It just has nothign to process, it has nothing to relate anything to anythign else. This actually has been challenged. They gave a pen and paper to people who had been blind from before birth, and never gained sight. The experimenter told these blind people how drawing works, then asked the blind to cross the fingers on one hand and draw the crossed fingers on paper. I wish I knew how to upload images. The lines (contour lines only) of the finger on the bottom were not drawn in their portions that were covered by the finger on top -- from the point of view of the eyes of the blind man. In other words, the completely and forever blind drew the picture as if they looked down on their hands and saw the crossed fingers as we see them. This shocked the world of psychology. All of a sudden we realized that there is more inherent, congenital knowledge for man than we've hitherto thought. If that was not enough, consider the "blind hallucination". People who go blind late in their lives, they will hallucinate things and see them that way. They are not psychotic, though the experience will scare them. It is indeed a true hallucination. There is all the reason to believe that a person who is senseless in every aspect from birth, will hallucinate sensations, and will, in fact, build his own Golem, or intermediary mental image of the world that he sees only via sensory hallucinations. That's some quite interesting information wux, thank you for taking the time to share it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rejecting, out of arrogance and narrow mindedness. You think you are smarter than God, so you refuse to accept him. That's not a very good defense. If that’s what you think I said then there’s no sense in even continuing this conversation because you’re just making up things in your own mind that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my position. I’m not the least bit surprised. If this is the way you treat the subject then you’re just in complete denial of truth. There’s no sense in attempting to even communicate with you. You aren’t even hearing what I’m saying. You're just making up your own fabrications that have nothing at all to do with anything that I even said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Believing in science is a belief in the supernatural ultimately. Because the very existence of 'nature' in the first place would be a 'supernatural phenomenon'. sure. but only if one believes in science. no good scientist does. indeed scientists are science's most severe skeptics. they test, retest and retest again because they never "believe" in a theory. a good scientist thinks that nothing can ever be proven absolutely so nothing can be believed to be fact. so i agree with you. "believing" in science is ultimately no different than believing in the supernatural. that's why scientists never believe in science and continue to question scientific principles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and I approached that belief in a suspicious manner. I wasn't always a Christian and I have always been fascinated by science. I wouldn't accept any belief that I didn't think best fit the given data. what given data supports genesis? a virgin mary? pick one and let's discuss the data. not testimony but data. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep I read that in an earlier post. Sorry but I think they are all grouped under the sense of touch. It is very complex sense with lots of different nerves but still just the sense of touch. And please do not use the phrase "is accepted by modern science". Because science is not a thing that accepts. Scientists are, and even then you cannot speak for everyone. If you want to provide a scientific source to back up your argument fine, but don't just say all of science supports my view. well said. you see these phrases often in the forum. somebody posts a link to a website and says "see? modern science agrees with me. science accepts the same thing i just said." rediculous of course. science being a field of study comprised of several different disciplines has never uttered a word. individual scientists speak though and rarely do they all agree. so sure, post a quote by a scientist that you feel best expresses your understanding. but never say something like "accepted by modern science". talk about intellectual dishonesty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why couldn't I question god's actions, if I believed he existed? I can question anything. It's within my power as an autonomous decision-maker with a free will that a supposed god embued me with.
If I were a believer, it would help me to question god's actions, since it would help me please him more and better. If I don't question his actions, as a believer, I never get closer to god's essence in this world, and therefore that would mean the entire disbanding of all religious organizations. Someone had to ask questions, along the way, otherwise the vatican would not exist, nor preachers, nor rabbis, no religions. If one can do it, why couldn't everyone? We are all god's childred, according to religion, are some children more favourite than others? bul. You may say we need not worry about getting close to his essence, because in the afterlife we will. But if we rely on the afterlife to get closer to a god's essence, then in this life we do things that he would (if he existed) not like and eventually deny from us entry into heaven. So in essence, to get as close to god's essence, if there were any, is more important than anything else in this world for religious people, and you cannot do that without occasionally raising questions. Heck, even the katekism (however it's spelled) is written in a question-answer form!! Those scientific types who are not believers in god, still have an infinitely complex and huge enigma in front of them, the universe with all its physical and emotional and spiritual laws. We question them, and it's okay, we have fun with that. Why would a god not like enquiry into his or her decisions or actions? You cannot ask this question unless you believe you can questions god's actions, and bang, you are paralizing yourself with your own restrictions. Those people who believe man is not supposed to question a supposed god's actions ab ovo cannot be argued with on this question of whether man ought to or not question a god. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sat 11/21/09 06:45 AM
|
|
You can't question the actions (of an alleged Christian god), because at that point you are accepting his existence and questioning the actions of a supreme being is a logical fallacy) or you need to just take the intellectually dishonest route and say you don't believe because you don't want to. There is always the third option, which is to accept Jesus. I LOVE this argument! If questioning god means accepting his existence, then not questioning means not accepting his existence. So in your definition all atheists and agnostics accept a god's existence, and all religious people, incl. Christians, reject god's existence. The first, since they question him, the latter, since they don't question him. I know this logic is wrong, but if you bring that up, I'll show you that one can question the alleged acts attributed to an imaginary figure without the necessary fact of accepting that the imaginary figure exists. That was your fallacy. What do you want: Reject your fallacy and mine, or accept both fallacies? One thing I will not allow you to do, and that is accepting your fallacy but rejecting mine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep I read that in an earlier post. Sorry but I think they are all grouped under the sense of touch. It is very complex sense with lots of different nerves but still just the sense of touch. And please do not use the phrase "is accepted by modern science". Because science is not a thing that accepts. Scientists are, and even then you cannot speak for everyone. If you want to provide a scientific source to back up your argument fine, but don't just say all of science supports my view. Right on! The term "science" is used as some intelligent entity that can "accept" things. How silly. I don't accept that.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spidey, Assuming there is a creator 'God'... What evidence do we have that the 'God' responsible for creating the universe must be the 'God' of Abraham? "Well," "that's" "a" "good" "question." "Let" "me" "sleep" "on" "it". Just kidding, but what's up with the quotes? There are lots of arguments for God's existence, there is some historical evidence also. Here is some of the historical evidence. I will just link you to it and you can research any claim you find dubious. I don't have time and a family emergency has my hands full at the moment. http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/archaeological-and-external-evidence So glad to have you back Spider, to liven up the forums.
About your link above.... I would just like to say that all propaganda is mixed with some truth, and lies are told in real locations. And even if the people who wrote the Bible witnessed what they wrote about, none of that is evidence. It's hearsay. Finding what you think might have been a location (like Jericho or some lost city.) Does not prove that the stories associated with that place are true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider said: It's a logical fallacy to question the actions of a supreme being. You are speaking in circles you see. Either a) God exists and you cannot question his actions, because he has perfect knowledge, wisdom and character or b) You have to reject the God of the Bible because you don't believe in a personal supreme being. That is why I don't argue the actions of the God you believe in anymore. But if I did temporarily accept the premise that he existed and did the things people believe he did, I would probably believe he was some alien or group of aliens passing themselves off as a Gods. In any case the things people believe he did do not seem Godlike to me. They actually seem more like something aliens might do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically, if you can do a better job, then create your own universe. If you can't do that, then you can't question God's behavior and remain intellectually coherent. hmmmmm. i'm a retired pilot. perhaps you are equally qualified and experienced as me in flying large boeing jets but for the sake of arguement, let's say that my forty years and eighteen thousand hours as a rated airline transport pilot is far more than what your logbook reads. in such a case i'd think it safe to say that i can do a better job at flying this big boeing beast from los angeles to chicago. so using your logic, since you cannot do this job better than i can, then you cannot question my behavior. you can watch me stumble into the cockpit, smell jack daniels on my breath, hear me slur my words and otherwise exibit the behavior of a drunk and yet you cannot question the behavior of the captain who will fly you and your family to chicago. and you consider that to be intellectually coherent? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wux wrote:
I LOVE this argument! If questioning god means accepting his existence, then not questioning means not accepting his existence. So in your definition all atheists and agnostics accept a god's existence, and all religious people, incl. Christians, reject god's existence. The first, since they question him, the latter, since they don't question him. Truly. 
Besides, look at Spider's argument: 1. Yes the Bible is utterly stupid. 2. So let's pretend that if we knew things that only God knows, we could see why it's not really as stupid as it appears to be. Why should we bother to pretend such a thing? 
If the Bible is stupid it's stupid. (A) The Bible has God commanding people to judge each other and stone, sinners, *heathens, and unruly children to death. It also has God teaching people to seek revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. * Please note that a "heathen" is anyone who rejects the teachings and commandments of this very God. (B) Jesus comes along and says, "Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law", and oh, by the way, I want you to stop judging others, stop stoning sinners to death, and quit seeking revenge and instead forgive each other and turn the other cheek. If Jesus is truly the son of the original God then here we have an utterly stupid situation. We have Jesus actually lying about not changing the laws since he goes right ahead and changes them anyway. If God had any honesty he's confess that he came to change the laws. Moreover, since Jesus disagrees with the teachings of Yahweh, then by Yahweh's own commands Jesus is a heathen and should be stoned to death. The Jews only did what Yahweh commanded and had Jesus crucified just like Yahweh commanded that they must do! Now, Spider is saying that we should ignore all these conflicting things and pretend that somehow, on some higher level, God has an explanation of why this book appears to be so stupid. But that's ridculuous. If we can't go by the book why are we bothering to attempt to justify this ficticious mythology in the first place? 
Also, if we're going to pretend that Gods can be justified if we ignore the mythology that surrounds them, then why aren't we all still worshiping Zeus? Spider, you call me arrogant for rejecting Yahweh, but what's your excuse for rejecting Zeus?
All you're doing is favoring one stupid mythology over another one without just cause. How arrogant of you to suggest that Yahweh deserves more respect than Zeus! On what grounds? If you knew the truth of Zeus on a higher level Zeus could justify everything that you think might be stupid or conflicting about Greek Mythology. Your arguments don't hold water. You're just favoring one stupid myhthology over other stupid mythologies and claiming that if we knew the truth (something beyond the mythology itself) we could see the justification of all the things that appear to be utterly stupid and conflicting in that mythology. You could support any mythology using such a lame argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically, if you can do a better job, then create your own universe. If you can't do that, then you can't question God's behavior and remain intellectually coherent. hmmmmm. i'm a retired pilot. perhaps you are equally qualified and experienced as me in flying large boeing jets but for the sake of arguement, let's say that my forty years and eighteen thousand hours as a rated airline transport pilot is far more than what your logbook reads. in such a case i'd think it safe to say that i can do a better job at flying this big boeing beast from los angeles to chicago. so using your logic, since you cannot do this job better than i can, then you cannot question my behavior. you can watch me stumble into the cockpit, smell jack daniels on my breath, hear me slur my words and otherwise exibit the behavior of a drunk and yet you cannot question the behavior of the captain who will fly you and your family to chicago. and you consider that to be intellectually coherent?
People who don't question authority are COWERING SLAVES. I don't question "God's" behavior because I don't know where God lives. I can't question "God's behavior" because I don't know what he did. I can't question "God's behavior" because there is doubt as to whether he even exists. So where it comes to a belief in God, who do you question? The Church fathers of course. You question the religious authorities of course. You question the Bible. You question the Pope. I would question God if he would show himself... and if any entity shows up claiming to be "God" I will question him about his claim. If I believe him to be God, then I have a few more questions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically, if you can do a better job, then create your own universe. If you can't do that, then you can't question God's behavior and remain intellectually coherent. hmmmmm. i'm a retired pilot. perhaps you are equally qualified and experienced as me in flying large boeing jets but for the sake of arguement, let's say that my forty years and eighteen thousand hours as a rated airline transport pilot is far more than what your logbook reads. in such a case i'd think it safe to say that i can do a better job at flying this big boeing beast from los angeles to chicago. so using your logic, since you cannot do this job better than i can, then you cannot question my behavior. you can watch me stumble into the cockpit, smell jack daniels on my breath, hear me slur my words and otherwise exibit the behavior of a drunk and yet you cannot question the behavior of the captain who will fly you and your family to chicago. and you consider that to be intellectually coherent? I can learn how to pilot a plane, it's not beyond my intellectual capacity. Can you know everything? Do you have the ability to create a universe? You guys are really terrible at analogies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and I approached that belief in a suspicious manner. I wasn't always a Christian and I have always been fascinated by science. I wouldn't accept any belief that I didn't think best fit the given data. what given data supports genesis? a virgin mary? pick one and let's discuss the data. not testimony but data. I don't have to have any data to support those beliefs. Why don't you read my whole post again and come back. You missed the point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why couldn't I question god's actions, if I believed he existed? I can question anything. It's within my power as an autonomous decision-maker with a free will that a supposed god embued me with. I'm not saying you can't question God's actions. I'm saying you can't rationally question God's actions, because you don't have perfect knowledge. If the Bible is correct, God knows everything. In comparison, we know nothing. It is a logical fallacy to question God's actions or suggest that they were stupid or immoral. Such a statement requires that you know every possible outcome from every action and know how each person effected would react. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can't question the actions (of an alleged Christian god), because at that point you are accepting his existence and questioning the actions of a supreme being is a logical fallacy) or you need to just take the intellectually dishonest route and say you don't believe because you don't want to. There is always the third option, which is to accept Jesus. I LOVE this argument! If questioning god means accepting his existence, then not questioning means not accepting his existence. No, now that's just sad. You are completely missing the point or being intentionally obtuse. So in your definition all atheists and agnostics accept a god's existence, and all religious people, incl. Christians, reject god's existence. The first, since they question him, the latter, since they don't question him. Smart atheists don't question God's behavior, because they realize it's a logical fallacy to question the actions of a supreme being. So they instead question the historicity of the Bible or the nature of God. I know this logic is wrong, but if you bring that up, I'll show you that one can question the alleged acts attributed to an imaginary figure without the necessary fact of accepting that the imaginary figure exists. That was your fallacy. No, you can't separate the two. If God exists, you can't question his actions, as you don't have perfect knowledge. You can question the actions of any being who isn't a supreme being, but you can't rationally question the actions of a supreme being. What do you want: Reject your fallacy and mine, or accept both fallacies? One thing I will not allow you to do, and that is accepting your fallacy but rejecting mine. I committed no fallacy, I pointed out one that unintelligent non-Christians often commit. You have not pointed out a logical fallacy, you have made a gratuitous assertion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider said: It's a logical fallacy to question the actions of a supreme being. You are speaking in circles you see. Either a) God exists and you cannot question his actions, because he has perfect knowledge, wisdom and character or b) You have to reject the God of the Bible because you don't believe in a personal supreme being. That is why I don't argue the actions of the God you believe in anymore. But if I did temporarily accept the premise that he existed and did the things people believe he did, I would probably believe he was some alien or group of aliens passing themselves off as a Gods. In any case the things people believe he did do not seem Godlike to me. They actually seem more like something aliens might do. That's great, I'm proud of you. You are probably the second person posting in this thread who understand why questioning the actions of a supposed supreme being is irrational. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's great, I'm proud of you. You are probably the second person posting in this thread who understand why questioning the actions of a supposed supreme being is irrational. Well, contrary to your false insinuations I have never questioned the actions of a supreme being either. All I've done is recognize that the mortal men who wrote the Bible were obviously inconsistent in their stories and quite nasty male-chauvinistic idiots too boot. No need to question the actions of any supreme being. I see no reason to believe that any supreme being ever had anything to do with the book. |
|
|
|
|
