Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

All Is Physical


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 966 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 19:56:39 BDT
So rare as to be exactly the same as non-existant.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 20:06:23 BDT
richard says:
that's a possibility although i don't think they were so rare in Victorian times until sceptics started to scrutinise proceedings. i think we also have to wonder why they should be rare. what is it that makes such events rare? with all the billions dead even if it was rare for a dead person to be able to communicate with the living would the shear weight of numbers not make it common? i think that trying to account for why it should be so rare is in some ways more difficult than trying to explain the occurrence!

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 20:22:27 BDT
John,

That is the point you don't and cannot ever know what my experience is because it is mine - you can only know that I had experienced something. I can talk about it until the cows come home, but it is entirely subjective and since many people here have tried to explain the experiences (and there have been many) - the explanations suit them but not me and since I had the experience I'm more likely to know something about it. If you want to think I was hallucinating, then by all means, but since we have not even discussed the experiences I think you may be jumping to conclusions.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 20:24:23 BDT
richard,

Yes, I've noticed this too. He makes foundless assertions with claims to authority from his favourite Catholic apologists. He posts these mammoth, incoherent posts thinking that volume somehow equates to value - without actually saying anything useful. Notice that he has not responded to my request to lay out clearly, in his own words, his arguments for why materialism has been found wanting - without the usual arguments by authority. Just a loud and bullying windbag, I think.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 20:30:40 BDT
Wayne,

I didn't suggest you were hallucinating - what I said was I had no way of assessing if you were, it is after all a possibility.

You must surely understand that I'm not going to take what you say without question. For example, how much credibility did you assign to David Icke?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 20:47:01 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"the explanations suit them but not me and since I had the experience I'm more likely to know something about it."
Not really. You go to the doctor for an expert opinion on what the aliments you are experiencing are caused by.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 20:52:49 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Oct 2012 23:00:25 BDT
richard says:
John,

i just find it very frustrating. it sometimes feels that words representing concepts have been put together in a sentence/paragraph purely to make it seem intelligent rather than to represent a train of thought and as such i am unable to create my own train of thought with which to pursue it. i'd have to ask so many questions in order to try and understand the rational behind what was said that it would make sensible response with limited time pretty much impossible. it starts off simple enough but inevitably turns into a jumble of words/thoughts. i am forced to think that either he is on a intellectual level so far beyond my own that it seems meaningless to me or that it is pretty much meaningless or he is incapable of expressing himself, and i hate to use the word, 'coherently' regardless of his level of knowledge. but the bottom line is that without some common ground/understanding and the sign of an exchange of views happening i just loose the desire to continue. to what purpose, to what end? seems to me that i'm just satisfying someone else's need to say what they want.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Oct 2012 22:34:08 BDT
richard,

Yes, he tries to paint himself as an intellectual, but fails at every step. He's probably best ignored until he actually presents a coherent argument of his own.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 02:11:26 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Oct 2012 02:18:56 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 02:28:46 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Oct 2012 03:42:05 BDT
light says:
Hi Thueatan,

You said, "The experience that we label 'belief' exists as a detectable physical state of the brain."

I think that the "reaction" to belief is physical and can be measured, but not the belief itself.

Theories of Emotion

"The major theories of motivation can be grouped into three main categories: physiological, neurological and cognitive. Physiological theories suggest that responses within the body are responsible for emotions. Neurological theories propose that activity within the brain leads to emotional responses. Finally, cognitive theories argue that thoughts and other mental activity play an essential role in the formation of emotions."

It looks like emotions are a reaction to stimuli which then causes more emotion.

ok good luck with it.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 02:46:49 BDT
Tom M says:
richard

Words are philosophical things. The issues discussed herein are philosophical in nature. Philosophical enquiry is not easy as Plato said , because it is the most removed from the senses.

I would highly recommend Feser's book. The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism

Do you know what a change is? Its rather like what we call 'time'. As Saint Augustine whose great intellect was the most formative in our western culture for some 700 years, said, "I know what time is , until I try to explain it."

I doubt that anyone here has much of an idea what time is and isn't.

The truth is, that the reductionist view you have been fed unconsciously and implicitly with occasional verbalizations, results in unintelligibility. Its not that you're not intelligent, but that intelligence is exactly the condition that obtains when what is out there, is in your mind.

You daily, and moment to moment use all of the principles I espouse in their denial completely blind to them. You really do owe it to yourself to take a shot at the hope that the universe might be quite intelligible, and I don't mean the amusements of string theory , fascinating enough as this is.

I can also assure you that I do not have any problem expressing myself. The structure of reality escapes you. The categories of reality; its principles are lost on your pals. That's why there's so little content.

When I give content, as I said months ago , it isn't even recognized.

Get Feser's book. Don't worry. It won't turn you into a Catholic; it will , at least if you follow it, open up reality for you. Along the way he shows what intellectual duds Dicky and the dullards are.

And it's not a matter of reaching 'out there' conclusions, but to the contrary, making sure that reality is obtained and affirmed. It is actually the intellectual heritage and still implicit common coinage of the West.

Give it a shot. All of a sudden, when I write a sentence about the epistemic principles of intelligibility and how materialism drowns meaning, you will likely know exactly what I am saying and exactly why it is true.

This doesn't mean by the way that you don't get a huge ammount of stuff intuitively.. we all do.. .and incidentally.. a zillion theists don't have a clue about a lot of this stuff too, but in traditional western monotheism, they don't much need it. Even evangelical protestants are going big into reason these days.

I understand your frustration and I know for a fact that not a single non-theist on this board and quite a few theists knows where I am coming from and how sound the reasoning is. I am just on chapter 1 with Mr Dawkins and his ever so foolish scientism, the intellectual disease that plagues the poor victimized western mind. It is such an abuse of excellent science.

So.. do yourself a great favor. Get his book. At the very least you will get an overview of the intellectual life of the western world and really understand the issues. You may indeed find that you have no choice at all but to agree.

Thanks for trying to engage. I'll tell you what. If you don't find Feser's book to be about the most brilliant thing you have ever read, then I will buy it back from you. You will at least get to see whose name sends you the money.

You will also see that I am not just satisfying a need to say what I want. I say what I think and I know why I think what I think right down to the core.

Cheers

Go ahead and get it.

The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 02:49:06 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Oct 2012 03:00:32 BDT
Tom M says:
"Rawlinson says:
richard,

Yes, he tries to paint himself as an intellectual, but fails at every step. He's prob"ably best ignored until he actually presents a coherent argument of his own"

Hahahaha.

Thanks John.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 02:56:41 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 04:00:26 BDT
light says:
Hi Tom,

I guess that's why self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit.

"Emotions were like wild horses and it requires wisdom to be able to control them."

What is wisdom? Is it physical or non-physical?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 05:57:46 BDT
Tom,

You're welcome. And from that last post to Richard, you've demonstrated my point yet again.

You make assertions as if they are established fact, citing various names and referencing books, but you never actually present an argument to back up those assertions. It looks to me like you don't know how to. You latch on to conclusions made my apologists whose worldviews you share and rubbish any others - but you never demonstrate that you actually understand them.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 08:03:40 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Oct 2012 09:38:58 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Ryan"
You mean Drew.

"What does anyone who knows the principles of triangularity."
The question was 'what do you mean by 'the principles of triangularity?'. Two lines in and nothing read or understood.

"One can speak of the properties of triangularity. Do they have extension in space - time? Can they be imagined? I address the differences between the sense based images of actual physical triangles and their difference with triangularity as it is known in the mind."
And when you do so I have no idea what you are getting at other than trying to form some deep difference between thinking about a triangle and articulating that thought. This is all your philosophy course managed to teach you, to pretend everything is far to difficult for the uninitiated and need theology to run to it's rescue.

"They are indeed the intelligible ordering principles of actual triangles, and they are of course, not physical."
That makes no sense. There are no 'intelligible ordering principles of actual triangles', we define what triangles are and exclude that which does not meet our definition by definition. There are shapes that meet our definition of a triangle and therefore earn the label and those that don't. We order which is which, there is no different, objective, other, ethereal principle needed to perform this task.

"Is it in the light photons that carry accross the room? Is it in the molecules it hits in the retina of the eye, or in the small spark as it passes from axons to dendrites? Does the physical charge become the meaning then? How about the sodium molecules in the brain? Do they contain the meaning?"
None of these questions contain much meaning when you realise you missed the obvious, we define what a triangle is and therefore the 'principles of triangularity'. Apart from being grammatically lucid they hold no value, their points of reference are all over the shop. That's how they bring you no answers, no further information, no clue as to where you go wrong. Not because you outwitted reality and found a flaw in knowledge or 'Physicalism' but because you can ask pointless questions that deserve no respect.

"Is the meaning beside the actual triangle that must be in the brain if physicalism were true?"
Why does everything have to *mean* something in the most profound sense of the word? A triangle is a basic geometric shape composed of three sides and three angles, beyond that there is no *meaning*. They don't take trips to Thailand to discover themselves, they don't navel gaze for a year at a decent college. They are as we defined them to be.

"I know you all have only heard about colour in its material mechanisms in non refracting light. We've ALL heard about that."
Good. At least light doesn't pose a problem to you. (Until you get to your 'Ahhhh, but what's is light's real intent?' questions.)

"I am talking however about the discussion that has gone on for decades as to how colour reception is possible if the world is only physical as I explained quite clearly."
You just answered your own question. Physical interactions cause light perception. Asking how that is possible is the stupidest of questions when you just went through the physical processes that allow you to see light.

"I know that most of you , rather like Dawkins, have virtually no idea of what even the questions are on these issues."
No, we have no respect for the pointless genuflecting you call 'philosophy' and the meaningless phrases, concepts and questions you can toss out by insisting everything must meet with your desire to be as meaningful and agreeable as the theology you insist upon. That's a dishonest pathway to knowledge.

"That has been exactly my point from the getgo."
I know, it's been a stupid point at that and one that will continue to be stupid and will continue to be asked to explain itself as to what you mean with little elaboration from you because you don't know what you mean by your question's language; only what you intend to impose on reality with your presumptions.

"This is why other people who actually study these matters refer to Dawkins as an "ignoramus". No insult. Simple description and a warning to the wise."
No, the reason others who study this come to the same conclusions and those in the out-group don't see it is because you went to college to learn how to prejudice a question to lead to theologically-friendly conclusions and other people don't do that and see through it. You have to learn to play these games and condition yourself to think them worthy. This will only ever be a minority endeavour and this is why you're left with the frustration that only a minority play along with you.

"This is why other people who actually study these matters refer to Dawkins as an "ignoramus". No insult. Simple description and a warning to the wise."
No matter how much you say it you employ the word ignoramus in the pejorative making it an insult, how suitable it is does not mitigate against this fact. What would help your idea that this is not an insult would be a greater number and more diverse references to their work with a focus on how they are wrong not a statement of your strong disapproval. It is all your own short-comings and short-sightedness that get you nowhere. You are only a few months off of 'Paul Davidson' territory, your posts are increasingly looking like contributions placed on a discussion board in the vain hope they are not spotted as the monologues they are.

"Please feel free to weigh in on the subject of colour (qualia) , the bifurcated Cartesian rupture with reality, and the utter failure of mechanistic philosophy and poor positivism to understand anything."
Tell you what. You reply to this by physically hammering on your physical keyboard, hit send which will set in motion a chain of digital and electronic signal feedback to the servers. I'll log let the lightwaves interact with my physical optical set up and fire back a response. At the same time be sure to send however many non-physical copies you can to me and we'll see which I pick up. That will give us an idea of how successful "mechanistic philosophy and poor positivism" is to your non-physical philosophy and transendental positivism are. Good luck!

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 08:07:16 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Good response. Without freedom from physical determinism as exists on the neural level, we are not free to believe or argue, or choose anything. All is then just mindless physical action."
That's a rejection of the implications but not a refutation of the possibility.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 09:20:10 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Anyone seen the Michael Mcintyre mickey take of mediums? Brilliant, and cruelly accurate.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 09:56:39 BDT
richard says:
no, is it on u tube?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 10:12:30 BDT
richard says:
Drew,

SNIP and QUOTE............

Two lines in and nothing read or understood.

And when you do so I have no idea what you are getting at

This is all your philosophy course managed to teach you, to pretend everything is far to difficult for the uninitiated and need theology to run to it's rescue.

That makes no sense. There are no 'intelligible ordering principles of actual triangles'

no clue as to where you go wrong. Not because you outwitted reality and found a flaw in knowledge or 'Physicalism' but because you can ask pointless questions that deserve no respect.

Good. At least light doesn't pose a problem to you. (Until you get to your 'Ahhhh, but what's is light's real intent?' questions.)

You just answered your own question. Physical interactions cause light perception. Asking how that is possible is the stupidest of questions when you just went through the physical processes that allow you to see light.

No, we have no respect for the pointless genuflecting you call 'philosophy' and the meaningless phrases, concepts and questions you can toss out by insisting everything must meet with your desire to be as meaningful and agreeable as the theology you insist upon.

little elaboration from you because you don't know what you mean by your question's language; only what you intend to impose on reality with your presumptions.

because you went to college to learn how to prejudice a question to lead to theologically-friendly conclusions and other people don't do that and see through it.

It is all your own short-comings and short-sightedness that get you nowhere. You are only a few months off of 'Paul Davidson' territory, your posts are increasingly looking like contributions placed on a discussion board in the vain hope they are not spotted as the monologues they are.

UNQUOTE

Drew, i just don't know where to begin to thank you for you efforts from which i have snipped the above bits/gems. i fully expect to be giggling on and off for the rest of the day.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 10:39:43 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Hi Richard, I am amazed ( and have told him so on a few occassions) at Drew's persistence and humour when dealing with the Canadian buffoon.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 10:45:30 BDT
richard says:
Hi C A,

i know. i looked at Tom's last reply (i use the term loosely) to me and just couldn't summon up the will or energy to try and respond. we must consider ourselves very lucky to have Drew around.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 10:53:10 BDT
C. A. Small says:
I have to admit, I gave up with Tom's lies and misreprentation of various studies. I had pointed out his errors and he just denied they were errors and stated I was too dumb to understand the results. He lied about what a survey had found and then stated what I had shown was a lie, even when I referenced the relevant section of the document he was using!

He epitomises (along with with his friend DB) all that is wrong with religion.

Posted on 24 Oct 2012 14:33:44 BDT
DB says:
C.a.
Do we have a working definition of 'physical'?
How do we recognise the physical? What are it's attributes?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Oct 2012 14:37:03 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Try Drew- I am sick of your idiotic questions, which when answered you ignore. He is more patient.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
ARRAY(0xa7742c48)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  33
Total posts:  966
Initial post:  19 Oct 2012
Latest post:  1 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions