Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
God is in the neurons
Options
Comments
-
Ok, but perhaps to save the need to explain everything, can you confirm that you accept that not all theories on the natural world are correct?
No theory is correct, some provide more satisfactory explanations for our observations than others.
For in-discussion rigors sake, I’d use the term ‘perceived reality’ over ‘natural world’.
Our discussion focuses (or should focus first) on what allows us to extract satisfaction from our theories and why.It is easy to establish that, experience teaches us that we have been wrong about our theories in the past. For example, I believed a girl I worked with liked and fancied me. I asked her out, she laughed and said not in a million years. This lead me to question why I initially believed that the girl I worked with liked and fancied me.
In order to look to theories (i.e. "things might not be as they seem and I need to investigate further"), something needs to cause you to question things being as they seem. Something about the reality must strike you as amiss (otherwise you can take things on face value) - but how do you get to that point?
In your example, you are assuming that she is saying what she means. You are also assuming that she is being consistent in what she says – that her saying "not in a million years" now was applicable at the time you formed the belief that she’d go out with you.
You are, in short, supposing that she is more or less like you. For if you said things you didn't mean then her saying "not in a million years" wouldn’t cause you to doubt your belief. In which case you’d have nothing striking you as amiss .. and you’d have no need to develop theories.
Assumptions about reality (e.g. people are like me: they say what they mean and they are consistent in their views) come before theories being formed. And it's the nature of those assumptions that determine whether this or that theory is going to strike you as 'satisfactory'.Notice that the initial theory is not a blank canvas. I initial assert there is a man in the room. "A man" is a tier 2 theory, it is shaped by previous experience with men in the past.
If we were truly moving from tier 1 into tier 2 with no previous tier 2 experience then we would have no initial theory to begin with. We would simply suppose something was happening, but with no notion of what that was.
I agree.
I referred to your experience of men generally - against which this particular man is compared - as the ‘massed backdrop’. The reality as you generally perceive it (your experience with "men") is going to be a key element in deciding whether there is something amiss in this particular observation ("there appears to be a man in my room").
At this point I would summarize by suggesting that:
1) Assumptions about the reality are key to helping us decide whether something is amiss in that reality. Assume this way and that theory will be more satisfactory. Assume that way and that theory will be more satisfactory. The foundation of those assumptions needs looking at.
2) Reality as we generally experience it (the massed backdrop) is a component in our coming to conclusions about the place of a an individual observation in it. If that’s a good way to phrase it.No, logic is being used as a tool, it is not an assertion that the more logical something is the more real it is. Logic is like a calculator, it can help you get the answer but it isn't the answer in of itself.
Fair enough, if semantical. The overarching query remains..Zombrex wrote:..which (theory of reality) is more accurate or likely based on the logic of the methodology used to pick them.
You indicate logic a determining component in whether or not a methodology will help us establish the (accuracy/likelyhood of the) reality. How did we arrive at that conclusion about logic? I mean, in granting logic this power we need to be able to say on what basis we've done that.
Are we agreed that logic's place at the table is based solely on an assumption? That it "feels right" to grant it such power and we assume that because it feel right to us, we're justified in giving it the import we give it?
(we'll come later to where I think this 'feels right' notion stems from)Correct, but you have it slightly backwards. The "a man in my room" is a theory explaining an observation that is itself based on previous experience.
This is the initial theory, it is not plucked from tier 1 but from previous experience in tier 2.
Even as something as basic as saying "something moving in my room" is plucked from previous experience in tier 2, since the difference between a still object and a moving object is something we only know from previous experience.
Okay.We are not attempting to demonstrate the existence of reality. We are attempting to determine which of the theories about reality are the most accurate.
Okay.
It was the means whereby prediction came to be an indicator of theory-accuracy that interested me. I’m keen on focusing on these elemental components (logic, prediction) - I suspect that it is aspects of the operation of the reality itself which constructs the means whereby we establish the operation of the reality. It informs us how it works by being the way it is and that way seeming right to us. We don't/can't arrive at that conclusion independent of the way reality is.
This is what I was referring to in 'logic feels right' above. The suggested sequence would be something like this:
the massed backdrop of reality is inherently logical / predictable (irrespective of whether we were here to observe it) > this strikes us as being the case - logic/predictability resonate in us as being an indicator of realness > we then go to examine aspects of reality to see if they are predictable in the same way the overarching reality is (or strikes us as being) logical / predictable.
And so, reality as it is is what determines our theories being satisfactory. And if that reality is perceived one way then this theory will be satisfactory. And if reality is perceived that way then that theory will be satisfactory.Sorry, who are "they" and "them" in that sentence?
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. We can leave it for the moment because the essential point is being made above about logic / prediction.Well we only need to do that if you are disputing the existence of optical illusions. Are you doing that?
No. But I might dispute with you as to what is and what isn’t an optical illusion.
It might be sufficient for us to follow prediction and logic (and not optical illusions) to their source. If we find that:
- our sense of prediction and logic as useful tools stems from the way reality generally appears to work
- our assumptions (including assumptions about prediction and logic) are based on how reality generally appears to be
.. then we are subjects of that reality, not masters of it. It would be the nature of the massed reality as we perceive it which tells us what’s a good theory about individual aspects of reality that cause us to question them. And if the perception of two people are fundamentally different then so too the theories they find satisfactory.So you, with some justification, abandon this theory. You conclude it is not your normal inner voice.
Ok, so we need a new theory. You seem to have gone straight to "Its God". While there is nothing wrong with that, that does not become the answer just because it is the next one you picked. I did not conclude it was an optical illusion just because I concluded there were problems with the "its a man" theory. The "its an optical illusion" theory also had to go through the same examination. And this is the bit you seem to have left out. Can you detail how "Its God" was examined.
Sure.
As I say, the point here isn’t to prove the existence of God since (as you say yourself) it's not the existence of reality we're looking at just theories about reality. I'm supposing he exists just like I suppose everything else does. It’s a fair question to ask how I concluded it was God in this case and not something else though.
The result of the command (for that is how it was structured) caused me carry on with what was now being rationally considered to be a pointless exercise. I’d ridden 80 miles with my gloves bungeed to the pillion seat. At some unknown point they’d fallen off. I was 10 miles into a backtrack search for them (embarked on irrationally
).
“It’s dark. Turn back."
"There are whole swathes of road you can’t see. Turn back."
"The gloves are black leather, the road black tarmac. Turn back."
"They most likely fell off earlier than later. Turn back"
"Oncoming cars mean you can’t even look at the road – you’re driving a bike looking at the opposite side of the road you Clown. Turn back. Turn back."
Then:
“Don’t stop. Go on”.
A half a mile further up, there are the gloves in the middle of the road under a streetlight. Reasons for God?
The command had power. It overcame overwhelming and decisive rationalism.
The command didn’t bark, cajole, reason, beg, sound authoritative, threaten .. or do any other recognizable thing one would normally associated with commands. Only God commands and it is done solely because the command is issued. The usual means by which our commands are given weight aren’t needed by him.
I was a relatively new-born at the time and was experiencing God ‘all over the shop’ as it were. God attends to new-born-agains as parents do their new-borns. He attends to their every need: feeding them, changing their nappies, assuring at every turn and looking after the tiniest detail in their lives. In the context, it was a no-brainer.
Class. God operates with class. There is a neatness and fittingness and delicateness to things that just has a certain class about it.
Another story, briefly. My Dad had died and we were up at his place going through stuff just after the funeral. My elder sis (who isn’t a believer) is the uber-responsible one and was taking it on herself to organize paperwork: bank, bills, will etc. And she was stressing badly because Dad was a bit of an organized paper hoarder. And was an artist to boot – there where rolls and stacks and boxes of sketches and documents and even our childhood paintings .. all over his office, his studio, his garage. She’s sitting at a desk, head in hands crying about Dads death, the responsibility and about the particular straw at that time: the will she can’t find. And she suddenly gets: a command? an urge? a direction? She sits up, turns around in the chair to a bookcase behind her. On top of it are numerous rolls of what turns out to be sketches. She reaches for one roll, unfurls it and there, in the middle, is Dad’s will. She’s still an unbeliever, my sis. She’s coldly rational just like you are – to this day. But she would admit to this day that something happened then. Something that lay outside the normal, rational parameters.
My gloves just had that self-same touch of class.
Class is hard to pin down precisely: it has aspects of right intensity of touch, timing, nail-on-head-ism, achieving subtle things (such as a lesson about obedience in the case of my gloves). In the case of God, I find a breadth of class that I've not experienced humans as being capable of.Can you detail how you arrived at the conclusion that God exists
I thought "Reality exists (God, people and the rest of it)" was a tier 1 assumption? We were looking at theories about reality, not at whether it exists or not.
To compare.
When you check an individual observation such as 'the man in your room' you are doing that against something considered fixed (people's assumed existence and the massed experience of how people are). You don't ask are the massed people real.
Similarily, I check an individual observation (such as 'don't stop, go on') against something considered fixed (God's assumed existence and the massed experience of how God is). I don't ask is God real.
If you want to open up the question of how I know the God I perceive exists then we'll have to open up the question of how you know the people you perceive are real. We'd be looking at massed backdrop - not at individual observations measured against the assumed massed backdropYou haven't. You have taken half of what I said, but you have not realized that simply because we discount something (it is not a man in my room) we still require reason for replacing that with a different competing theory.
If for example I had concluded it was not a man in my room, but had no other theory to replaced it with (for example I did not know about optical illusions) then I would be left to conclude that I do not know what is happening.
This, it shouldn't really need to be said, is not a reason to simply insert any old theory in its place (its a witch! its a spirit! its the drink! I have a brain tumor!)
Once you have discarded one initial theory you are still left with a swirling mass of other competing alternative theories. To pluck one of them out requires a reason.
When I said I thought I’d “pulled things back” I was indicating what I figured was the correct zone of discussion at this point in proceedings. This place is at the interface of tier 1 and tier 2 - not so far downstream as you seem to be building your points.
Like, most of what you’re talking of takes the massed backdrop as a given (how people generally are is established) as well as tools such as logic and prediction - and utilizes them to assess a single observation (such as the man in your room). My 'pulling back' aims to examine the basis of the solid ground your supposedly standing on in order to carry out this assessment. From whence logic, prediction, the solid massed backdrop of people.They aren't. They are precisely the same for discarding theories that fail the initial examinations, but we differ in how we replace these theories.
It remains to be seen whether our differing matters.
If it is the case that our perception of reality informs our evaluation of theories about aspects of that reality then our having different perceptions could be expected to produce a divergence in opinion as to what constitutes a fitting theory.
This, without our having to diverge in view about the place of logic or prediction or basis of our assumptions. I'm not supposing divergence about those core things at this time.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Identical to the sense I feel when reading one of yours which doesn't contain anyantiskeptic wrote: »I know how you feel. To read a post of yours addressed to me which doesn't contain the word 'sophistry'... 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »The result of the command (for that is how it was structured) caused me carry on with what was now being rationally considered to be a pointless exercise. I’d ridden 80 miles with my gloves bungeed to the pillion seat. At some unknown point they’d fallen off. I was 10 miles into a backtrack search for them (embarked on irrationally).
“It’s dark. Turn back."
"There are whole swathes of road you can’t see. Turn back."
"The gloves are black leather, the road black tarmac. Turn back."
"They most likely fell off earlier than later. Turn back"
"Oncoming cars mean you can’t even look at the road – you’re driving a bike looking at the opposite side of the road you Clown. Turn back. Turn back."
Then:
“Don’t stop. Go on”.
A half a mile further up, there are the gloves in the middle of the road under a streetlight. Reasons for God?
The command had power. It overcame overwhelming and decisive rationalism.
The command didn’t bark, cajole, reason, beg, sound authoritative, threaten .. or do any other recognizable thing one would normally associated with commands. Only God commands and it is done solely because the command is issued. The usual means by which our commands are given weight aren’t needed by him.
I was a relatively new-born at the time and was experiencing God ‘all over the shop’ as it were. God attends to new-born-agains as parents do their new-borns. He attends to their every need: feeding them, changing their nappies, assuring at every turn and looking after the tiniest detail in their lives. In the context, it was a no-brainer.
Class. God operates with class. There is a neatness and fittingness and delicateness to things that just has a certain class about it.
Ok, now we are getting some where. So what you have done here is two things. First discarded an intial theory that it is just your usual voice in your head, because this failed to match with the model of "My inner voice"
And you have also arrived at a (some what basic) model of God, with the following characteristics.
God will appear as a voice in my head.
The voice will have power to persuade me.
It will be speak with authority but not annoying or badgering.
It will simple and delicate, not convoluted.
Now the first question is where did you get this model of God from? (this is the big question, so feel free to ignore the others below if you like)
The second question, which you seemed to hint at in the post, is had you already become a Christian at this stage?
The third question is did you consider any other theories that may also have explained the phenomena?
Sorry to hear that.antiskeptic wrote: »My Dad had diedantiskeptic wrote: »But she would admit to this day that something happened then. Something that lay outside the normal, rational parameters.
Well this is the fundamental issue. Something has happened. The question is now how to we map from that something to an explanation of what it is in order to both understand what has happened (for our own satisfaction) and to understand what is going to happen based on that phenomena.antiskeptic wrote: »My gloves just had that self-same touch of class.
Class is hard to pin down precisely: it has aspects of right intensity of touch, timing, nail-on-head-ism, achieving subtle things (such as a lesson about obedience in the case of my gloves). In the case of God, I find a breadth of class that I've not experienced humans as being capable of.
And, trying to avoid circular reasoning (:)), what leads you to conclude that "God" is capable of it?antiskeptic wrote: »I thought "Reality exists (God, people and the rest of it)" was a tier 1 assumption? We were looking at theories about reality, not at whether it exists or not.
Ok, let me rephrase. What lead you to conclude that the phenomena you experiences was most accurately explained by the model "Christian God", and where did this model first come from?antiskeptic wrote: »Similarily, I check an individual observation (such as 'don't stop, go on') against something considered fixed (God's assumed existence and the massed experience of how God is). I don't ask is God real.
And where have you amassed this experience from? What was your first ever encounter with the phenomena you classify as "God" that allowed you to first start building the conceptual model of how this phenomena behaves?antiskeptic wrote: »It remains to be seen whether our differing matters.
True, I am perhaps unfairly jumping the gun there. I will hold my conclusions until further exploration of the questions I asked above.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Hi Zombrex..
Sorry about the delay in responding - I've just not had that kind of time of late. I'll get to reply o'er the holidays no doubt.
Happy .. festive season .. to you and yours.
No worries, merry Christmas 0
Advertisement