Who designed the designer?

[wegs]

IMO, that is not so hard to comprehend, if taken as a non-spiritual mathematical potential of space-time. An abstract, implacable self-referential organizing function.

The problem comes in when assigning a motivated intelligence to this universal mathematical function. IOW, the problem arises, when you do take it in a spiritual sense. Where does that come from?
i.e. who designed the spiritual entity? And why does it need purpose?

Faith is based on belief, and then acceptance of that belief. I like the simplicity of faith most times, but it can halt these types of conversations, and appear like a cop out. haha I don't mean it to be as such, but I don't see it as a ''problem,'' as you have indicated that is how you see it. Faith is something that simply works for me and for my life.

 

[Write4U]

Faith is based on belief, and then acceptance of that belief. I like the simplicity of faith most times, but it can halt these types of conversations, and appear like a cop out. haha I don't mean it to be as such, but I don't see it as a ''problem,'' as you have indicated that is how you see it. Faith is something that simply works for me and for my life.

Any self generated subjective structural mental environment can work for the individual.
But a purely subjective individual mental orientation is separated from all other subjective perspectives.

After all we see reality by consensus agreement. Any assumption that a single personal perspective yields objective truth is problematic.

Personally, I keep it to basic mathematical functions. We know they work. We have "applied mathematics", but we can't produce anything with "applied theism". Prayer doesn't work.

 

[DaveC426913]

So why does the brain choose to do this "auto pilot", how does it know that it needs it? and what about unfamiliar ways home?

This is a subject you can read up on, if you're interested.

Generally, the higher mind gets bored with mundane tasks. Just like day-dreaming, sometimes it just zones out, and turns off for a while. It's a stage of semi-alertness partway between fully-alert and unconscious.

When one makes a turn onto an unfamiliar road, and the p-zombie doesn't know what to do it, it will wake up the conscious mind - like waking the captain of a ship, when sighting unexpected shores.

 

[davewhite04]

This is a subject you can read up on, if you're interested.

Generally, the higher mind gets bored with mundane tasks. Just like day-dreaming, sometimes it just zones out, and turns off for a while. It's a stage of semi-alertness partway between fully-alert and unconscious.

When one makes a turn onto an unfamiliar road, and the p-zombie doesn't know what to do it, it will wake up the conscious mind - like waking the captain of a ship, when sighting unexpected shores.

Thanks Dave,

What you are talking about is a philosophy just like my "experience". Multiple, knowledge that others in the same boat experience the same thing, day dreaming you wake up, this you fall into a deep sleep and don't question anything until after maybe your full English breakfast and two cups of coffee.

The question is how the brain knows when to kick into overdrive.

It's actually a profound subject, and I see why you believe what you do, but it is a philosophy just like my idea so it needs to be discussed in a philosophical manner not in a way that supposedly ends a subject where your answer has no more value then mine.

In any case, I can't see how we can continue as apparently I'm the one that needs to learn something because I have been proved wrong by a bunch of philosophers who got around a table and made something up, to discuss. It is the way subjects should be discussed if that is the field you are interested in, but don't assume you are right based on a bunch of people trying to explain this phenomena away, and remember we have little understanding of the brain.

The only way we can debate is if all the members who want to debate a religion philosophically there needs to be a criteria, one rule is the atheist has to entertain the existence of a god(s) or God, otherwise what's the point?

It seems atheists answer with something that is supposed to answer a question to end a thread, when there is no right answer.

 

[DaveC426913]

What you are talking about is a philosophy just like my "experience".

In any case, I can't see how we can continue as apparently I'm the one that needs to learn something because I have been proved wrong by a bunch of philosophers who got around a table and made something up, to discuss. It is the way subjects should be discussed if that is the field you are interested in, but don't assume you are right based on a bunch of people trying to explain this phenomena away, and remember we have little understanding of the brain.

Sorry, just because it has 'philosophical' in the term doesn't mean it's a philosophical issue.

The brain is the seat of consciousness. This we know. When the brain is damaged, the consciousness suffers.

If you want to posit some part of consciousness that transcends the brain, you'll have to make an evidenced-based case for that.

 

[davewhite04]

Sorry, just because it has 'philosophical' in the term doesn't mean it's a philosophical issue.

The brain is the seat of consciousness. This we know. When the brain is damaged, the consciousness suffers.

If you want to posit some part of consciousness that transcends the brain, you'll have to make an evidenced-based case for that.

Which is like you saying end of argument. You should question what is the difference between knowledge and ignorance?

If you want to pretend that science has answered this question, show me evidence. All I see are people showing potential answers which you latch onto like a monkey, because a scientist said so.

You need to open your mind otherwise you'll never learn, you'll just be in a cycle of accepting cherry picked answers based on an atheistic point of view. Sometimes it's best just saying "I don't know" generally, but personally I accept somethings as fact based on personal experience. Like cycling and taking in a beautiful view of the coastline which you can't convey to anyone properly, they probably wouldn't be interested, but to you it was beautiful. which means nothing to anyone else, which is my position all the time.

 

[DaveC426913]

Which is like you saying end of argument.

No, it's like me saying I'm not going to drink the snake oil just because someone says it'll cure me.
Or: if you want me to believe pixies are real, show me some pixies.

If you want to pretend that science has answered this question, show me evidence.

What question: exactly?
That inattention in the mind is a property of the brain and not some soul?

It is your assertion that a soul exists. The onus is on you to provide evidence.

because a scientist said so.

As opposed to 'because davewhite04 said so'?

You need to open your mind otherwise you'll never learn, you'll just be in a cycle of accepting cherry picked answers based on an atheistic point of view. Sometimes it's best just saying "I don't know" generally, but personally I accept somethings as fact based on personal experience.

Ah. So your personal, factual experience of a soul, then.

 

[sideshowbob]

You need to open your mind otherwise you'll never learn, you'll just be in a cycle of accepting cherry picked answers based on an atheistic point of view.

I, for one, have never read anything "from an atheist point of view".

 

[DaveC426913]

I, for one, have never read anything "from an atheist point of view".

Indeed. Perhaps DW doesn't realize that 'atheist POV' simply means 'don't accept without sufficient evidence'.

An atheist doesn't accept arguments of the existence of God without sufficient evidence.
An atheist is a subset of skeptics, which is a subset of rational people.

Everyone is rational to some degree. Even DW4.
DW4 probably doesn't accept the existence of pixies or unicorns without sufficient evidence.
Even MR doesn't accept the existence of God without sufficient evidence.

So, unless DW4 wants to abandon all reasoning whatsoever - and accept that Santa is real and there really is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow - he'd better hurry up and get to acknowledging that any rational person requires sufficient evidence before accepting an extraordinary claim.

 

[davewhite04]

That inattention in the mind is a property of the brain and not some soul?

Enjoy your belief, but don't push it onto others because you think it is right. Who do you think you are?

It is your assertion that a soul exists. The onus is on you to provide evidence.

I didn't as usual another fool who is trying to make someone else look foolish for their own private perverted show. My assertion was about my reality, I don't care about your reality, maybe I would if you didn't misunderstand, confuse, accuse based on thin air.

Ah. So your personal, factual experience of a soul, then.

Exactly. I'm not 100% sure if there are more than 2 aspects to a person, but that's another debate that would be pointless, unless people debated philosophically and accepted they could be wrong.

 

[spidergoat]

If you want to pretend that science has answered this question, show me evidence. All I see are people showing potential answers which you latch onto like a monkey, because a scientist said so.

It's naturalistic, which is always a logically superior explanation (even if it's tentative and not "sure") than the supernatural, for which no evidence is even possible.

 

[Write4U]

Which is like you saying end of argument. You should question what is the difference between knowledge and ignorance?

We can discuss the fantastic organ named brain on its own merits. No spirituality needs to be introduced at all.

When we start discussing the brain from a religious viewpoint we are discussing from ignorance and not knowledge.

 

[Write4U]

If you want to pretend that science has answered this question, show me evidence. All I see are people showing potential answers which you latch onto like a monkey, because a scientist said so.

You should look at that sentence again. It is just not a good argument.
In fact it is ad hominem.
I know you don't intend to insult, but you are doing so when you use that kind of language.

Science is the study of the evidence. I could easily reply that religious people latch onto spiritual ideas like monkeys because they are spiritual and not based on any evidence at all.

Who would prefer to work on your car, the mechanic or your priest? Your brain is a machine, an organic computer and we do know a lot about how it works.

IMO. the problem with a religious perspective is that it is the language of monkeys; monkey see, monkey do.

And religious monkeys know nothing of the brain and how it works.
If they did they would not say things like scientists latch onto things without evidence.

That practice is in the domain of religion and spiritualism.

 

[davewhite04]

It's naturalistic, which is always a logically superior explanation (even if it's tentative and not "sure") than the supernatural, for which no evidence is even possible.

Wait. Evidence is possible, via personal experience. It is about realities. If you had an experience that changed your reality, you would probably go on a lifetime quest to find meaning to this experience. It would become a fact in time to you(as long as you believe in yourself).

Have you had a supernatural experience?

 

[Write4U]

Enjoy your belief, but don't push it onto others because you think it is right. Who do you think you are?

Because you are pushing spirituality.

If you want an honest discussion, you cannot say, "lets pretend for awhile". That will not teach you anything.

 

[Write4U]

Have you had a supernatural experience?

We have all had unexplainable experiences. That little voice that warns you (which is you). Deja Vu (your memory)that you have been somewhere before.
None of these experiences are supernatural. The fact you had them proves it's not external or supernatural.

Nor is the causality.

 

[davewhite04]

Because you are pushing spirituality.

If you want an honest discussion, you cannot say, "lets pretend for awhile". That will not teach you anything.

Here come the lies, confusion and basic nonsense.

I am not pushing anything, check every post I've posted, it's starting to baffle me... why do you accuse people of something they've never done?

Do you know what philosophy is?

 

[Write4U]

Here come the lies, confusion and basic nonsense.

I am not pushing anything, check every post I've posted, it's starting to baffle me... why do you accuse people of something they've never done?

Do you know what philosophy is?

Yes, and perhaps you are not aware of this, but you are asking an atheist to, for a moment, assume there is a God as described in scripture.
To pretend. That's akin to asking let's pretend Santa Claus exists and on christmas he delivers presents. People used to believe that, science has shown "gods" to be false interpretations of natural phenomena.

That is pushing a spiritual philosophy, rather than a wordly, secular philosophy. The evidence suggests that assuming a supernatural god is a poor basis for intellectual exploration. There is a difference between philosophy and metaphysics.

 

[DaveC426913]

Enjoy your belief, but don't push it onto others because you think it is right. Who do you think you are?

It's not a belief, it's critical thinking. I'm a critical thinker.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying show me the evidence.

My assertion was about my reality

Which is fine. But you're here raising it for discussion on a public forum about our unconscious mind. If you don't want your beliefs challenged, don't raise them in a public discussion.

Exactly. I'm not 100% sure if there are more than 2 aspects to a person, but that's another debate that would be pointless, unless people debated philosophically and accepted they could be wrong.

I accept there can be more than one answer. Just show me some evidence.


You can't have this both ways.

Either you're raising this as a matter of discussion, in which case, we're going to ask for evidence.

Or you're expressing your personal belief in a public discussion forum where we're going to discuss and challenge its veracity. In which case, you can't complain that we publicly discuss it and challenge it.

Pick one, and be quick about it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you know what philosophy is?

Yup. It's a different forum, two doors down on the right.