Proof there is a God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by JBrentonK, Sep 23, 2015.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,228
    That is more correctly written: It is absolutely impossible to access this fictional feature or property of the universe.

    This one should be phrased: I don't know of any people that have witnessed panpsychism.

    And this one: I'm still deluded and I was being dishonest when I claimed in post #153 to be posting "to get feedback and knowledge" since I'm not actually paying attention to feedback and I have (still) no knowledge of what I claim.

    So what?
    What makes you think it's relevant in any way to this thread? Unless you're simply giving a friendly shout out to a fellow crank, of course.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Dywyddyr,

    I don't mind you challenging my claims but do you have to throw in insults? Sheeiz.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,228
    There aren't any insults in my post.
    Merely statements of demonstrable fact.
    If you consider the observed facts to be insulting then perhaps you should adjust your posting style and attitude and also learn some rationality and logic.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    I would be an illogical and irrational idiot to doubt my observations of panpsychism.

    P.S. Michael Anteski's ether is what I interacted with. Entanglement between mind and external reality.
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    How do you know you aren't mistaken?
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Because he's crazy, and crazy people are always sure they're right.
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    The first thing I would assume is that I'm experiencing an hallucination. That is much more likely than that there is a God and he's communicating with you. Since there's no other evidence of such a thing, but tons of evidence that people hallucinate. Once my friend was talking to me, and I didn't understand a word, but it sounded like a saxophone playing. There was no other source of sound in the room.
     
  11. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,704
    Most likely because panpsychism isn't true.

    So you drove yourself into a state of emotional agitation and then convinced yourself that you had experienced some kind of unusual subjective experience.

    I don't believe that you did either.

    If it doesn't happen in the presence of any credible witnesses, and if it isn't detectable by instruments, I'd say that it's probably only happening in your head.

    I don't see how your private and subjective experience, no matter how extraordinary you think that experience is, tells the rest of us anything interesting about the nature of objective reality.
     
  12. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,358
    It'd be about time.
    This is illogical and irrational.

    Panpsychism sounds like that dumb plot device in Avatar, you know, where every single being is in tune with the planet (except the invading humans).

    Michael's ether has been debunked, refuted, buried, dug up for another round of mockery,laughed at, reburied, then sighed at.
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,228
    But, apparently, you manage to NOT doubt your (imagined) "observations of panpsychism while STILL being illogical and irrational.

    And complete woo.
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    17,307
      In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal feature of all things, and the primordial feature from which all others are derived. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of minds.
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,228
    Right...
    Because no one knew that and they weren't capable of checking for themselves.
    And it's STILL unsupported woo.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Anything ; concept ; outside the mainstrem thinking is " woo " to you.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That's a pretty low bar for consciousness. I guess it can just mean anything passively interacting with other things.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Low bar for consciousness? Why do you think this way?
     
  19. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    "Mainstream" is mainstream for a reason.

    Can you guess what that reason is, river?
     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Because rocks are dumb.
     
    Dywyddyr likes this.
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,704
    Yes. I think that a lot of the recent eruption of panpsychism (CC knows more about this than me, since unlike me she's attracted to it and finds it credible) derives from the primary/secondary quality distinction. Physical objects are thought to be composed of atoms. Atoms, at least on the classical view that inspired this 17'th century distinction, were believed to have qualities like position, velocity and mass. These were primary qualities, qualities that actually inhere in objects themselves. (Interestingly, these were the qualities that lent themselves to 17th century's attempts to mathematize physics.) Secondary qualities on the other hand are things like the experienced quality of redness. Secondary qualities were widely thought to be dependent on minds. Atoms presumably have no color in this sense. This motivated all kinds of representative theories of perception, in which what we directly perceive (whatever that means) isn't the physical object we think we perceive, but rather some kind of mental image of it, like watching an inner TV monitor displaying a mind-generated image of the surrounding world. The British empiricists assumed this, as did Kant and his followers. It's still a widely held assumption in cognitive and neuro-science. The early quantum physicists (whose limited exposure to philosophy tended to be Kantian) assumed it and it's part of what motivated the Copenhagen interpretation.

    Representative theories of perception obviously have all kinds of skeptical implications. If we don't actually perceive an objective physical world, then how do we know that it bears any resemblance to what we see, or that it even exists? That's the path that some of the 19th century German idealists took. More recently, a few philosophers have tried to overcome these arguments and preserve realism regarding the perceived world by arguing that physical objects, including the atoms that make them up, possess secondary qualities as well as primary qualities. The atoms that compose a red object really are red. But since secondary qualities like redness are thought to be subjective and mental, everything to which secondary qualities can apply must have some minimal subjectivity of its own, so this argument seems to go.

    I'm less sure of that. Most of the recent panpsychists seem to favor something like a double-aspect account of qualities. In these theories every object in the world supposedly has both objective/physical and subjective/mental qualities. (How outside observers supposedly observe another object's subjective/mental qualities, so that an object is red to us and not just to the object itself, remains mysterious.)

    That depends on what kind of panpsychism they embrace, I guess. I guess that all panpsychists would agree that everything has mental characteristics.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2015
    Spellbound likes this.
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,103
    Why should it? If he sees and interacts with a rock, does he have to consult "the rest of us" to validate that? How much of your own reality relies on first-person direct experience without consulting some peer consensus about it? Do you call your friends every time you experience something extraordinary to see if it was real or not? Why would you?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,103
    500 years ago mainstream was that God ruled the universe and it all revolved around earth. Why should "mainstream" mean anything more than the lowest common denominator of the collective consciousness at that time in history?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015

Share This Page