Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[Left Coast]

Yet, the concept still exists, and exists so fully that it determines your reality.

The concept certainly exists in my mind, no doubt. And it certainly determines my interpretation of reality, no argument there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree. You're aware, I assume, that all philosophers don't agree about qualia, right? That it's an area of intense disagreement? It's not as though we're talking about physicists' understanding of gravity here.



Of course I started the topic to have an argument - I posted a thread in the "General Religious Debates" forum. That's what it's for.

However, believe it or not, we can both walk and chew gum. I have both done a decent amount of philosophical reading (for someone who's not a professional philosopher) and also enjoy a healthy debate to exchange ideas with others.

If you don't find online forums for discussing or debating religion or philosophy to be fruitful, then I'm honestly not sure what you expected to find here. I apologize, again, that I have not met your expectations. Perhaps try some exchanges with others here in other threads; there are some quite educated people here. They may be more worthy of your expertise.

Okay, heavy duty philosophy it is. In physicalism the question is, if the mind supervenes on the brain, then can all concepts be reduced down to physical concepts and terms?
I.e. is the mind reductive or non-reductive in physical terms?

Now for that game I hold the position of non-reductive emergent properties in the mind, which supervenes on the brain, but can't be explained fully and sufficiently in physical concepts and terms.
It is simple to test:
Someone: I can explain everything in physical terms.
Me: No! You can't do that e.g. with this "no".

Some people don't understand this and they turn to mental words to explain that it doesn't make sense if the world is not fully physical. The joke is that "it doesn't make sense " is not physical, it is mental and a qualia.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Understood. So in your view, a non-physical, non-conceptual God is in fact incoherent.

You just think all worldviews are incoherent as well.

Am I summarizing correctly?

Bingo. You get it.
In biological terms we have brains, because they allows us to live and replicate if lucky. Evolution is not about understanding the world as such. It is about living in the world. That is not the same.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[PureX]

The concept certainly exists in my mind, no doubt. And it certainly determines my interpretation of reality, no argument there.

Keep in mind that experience IS interpretation. So that conception (even though it's inaccurate) will determine how you experience and understand existence (your reality).

 

[izzy88]

I apologize, again, that I have not met your expectations. Perhaps try some exchanges with others here in other threads; there are some quite educated people here. They may be more worthy of your expertise.

Your passive-aggressive sarcasm is getting old, and it's betraying your apparently fragile ego.

I may speak honestly and bluntly when it's clear that someone doesn't understand the topic they're trying to argue, but I don't do it with an arrogant tone, because I don't believe I'm better than anyone. I've been very friendly to you, but you've responded negatively simply because I questioned your knowledge in this specific area.

There's plenty of fruitful discussion to be had here, but you seem to be doing your best to turn this into a dick measuring contest (congratulations on your multiple degrees; I'm sure we're all very impressed). You were an *** to me in our previous interaction, but I believe in second chances.

I guess maybe we'll see about a third, in the future.

Take care.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Keep in mind that experience IS interpretation. So that conception (even though it's inaccurate) will determine how you experience and understand existence (your reality).

"Unreal beliefs have real consequences". That is true of all unreal beliefs. As long as they work subjectively and can lead to further behavior, it doesn't matter how "unreal" they are.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

You don't get it. You assign materialism to your assumption of real. I don't.

You think you can walk through walls, are immune to physics? Good luck with that!

You attach a lot of thoughts to your assumptions beyond the core simplicity of those.

It seems to me that you're the one with the add-ons. You haven't stated what, exactly, you'd with to add, but it sounds like the supernatural ─ please feel free to clarify or correct that. But if a phenomenon in reality has two explanations, materialism, and materialism + Something Else, Occam's razor is going to choose the simpler. That's to say, the Something Else has to be necessary for a complete explanation, or we have grounds to discard it.

You are a materialist, I am not.

Persuade me with examinable evidence. If you're right, surely there's some clincher in your hand that you can show me?

 

[blü 2]

We can know THAT we don't know, without knowing WHAT we don't know. That's how a mystery is generated. We identify it by context. By the question's we are being caused to ask based on what we think we DO know.
It's not incoherent. Mysteries are logical, and real.

Mystery can be the accurate name for real states of affairs, yes. And it can be logical to call some particular state of affairs a mystery.

But give me an example of a mystery that is of itself "logical".

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, heavy duty philosophy it is. In physicalism the question is, if the mind supervenes on the brain, then can all concepts be reduced down to physical concepts and terms?
I.e. is the mind reductive or non-reductive in physical terms?

Now for that game I hold the position of non-reductive emergent properties in the mind, which supervenes on the brain, but can't be explained fully and sufficiently in physical concepts and terms.
It is simple to test:
Someone: I can explain everything in physical terms.
Me: No! You can't do that e.g. with this "no".

Some people don't understand this and they turn to mental words to explain that it doesn't make sense if the world is not fully physical. The joke is that "it doesn't make sense " is not physical, it is mental and a qualia.

Regards
Mikkel

I find that all fascinating, but we're still talking about the nature of the mind and its contents. I'm interested in discussing what "existence" means outside of minds and concepts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You think you can walk through walls, are immune to physics? Good luck with that!
It seems to me that you're the one with the add-ons. You haven't stated what, exactly, you'd with to add, but it sounds like the supernatural ─ please feel free to clarify or correct that. But if a phenomenon in reality has two explanations, materialism, and materialism + Something Else, Occam's razor is going to choose the simpler. That's to say, the Something Else has to be necessary for a complete explanation, or we have grounds to discard it.
Persuade me with examinable evidence. If you're right, surely there's some clincher in your hand that you can show me?

That is a mental rule and not material or physical. You use mental rule to declare that everything in the end is not mental, but material. That is what you don't get. You use a dualism of mental rules to explain the world is material.
To have a complete explanation you yourself use mental rules.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[atanu]

This was the point I kept coming back to as well. Even if we agree on the effectiveness of empirical data to help us navigate the world, empirical data can't establish that empirical data is all there is.

So, you agree that Philosophical Naturalism is incoherent? If that is so, then what kind of materialism is coherent?

 

[blü 2]

That is a mental rule and not material or physical. You use mental rule to declare that everything in the end is not mental, but material. That is what you don't get. You use a dualism of mental rules to explain the world is material.
To have a complete explanation you yourself use mental rules.

On the contrary, I think the subjective, the sense of self, is the product of physical brain states. What do you think they are?

And is that Something Else which you wish to add, the supernatural? Or what, exactly, is it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find that all fascinating, but we're still talking about the nature of the mind and its contents. I'm interested in discussing what "existence" means outside of minds and concepts.

Ahh, what is outside your mind is unknown, because to know means "I know something" and the "I" can't be reduced away. You can't know something, you can't know.

It is in practice a weak version of epistemological solipsism. All knowledge requires somebody who knows it.

The physical is in practice a certain category of experience and that is it. It is the problem of empiricism as described here:
"In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience."
You are of the "primarily" kind as far as I can tell, but most people forget that it requires experience as such.
Reality in itself independent of the experience of it is unknowable. A lot of people forget that and think in their minds about reality in itself independent of the experience as if they know about that. They don't, they think about it in their minds.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On the contrary, I think the subjective, the sense of self, is the product of physical brain states. What do you think they are?

And is that Something Else which you wish to add, the supernatural? Or what, exactly, is it?

So you do something subjective "think" and declare that because you think it is objective, it is objective. As long as you can't in effect catch, hold and understand that you start first person subjectively in your mind and then declare that it is objective, because you subjectively think so, this will not end.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[atanu]

The part of the brain that monitors the whole thing when you're asleep ─ hears loud noises or the baby crying or notes you've twisted your foot in the blankets &c.

To understand this, I have to be totally imbued with soma -- in other words, I need a strong drink.

A part of the brain monitors the physical events that may be harmful to the physical body when I'm asleep and it warns and wakes me up. What is the part that is sleeping? What is that part that comes to know of the warning? And what is that part which now wakes up?

If all these executive functions are performed by the brain as a result of which we have consciousness of "I am" and also diverse kinds of phenomenal consciousnesses, then why does the brain stop generating the "I am" sense when the breath leaves the body?

Is it not parsimonious to say that the consciousness that we call SELF links the three states of a deep sleep, dream, and waking and is the source of consciousness in all three states? The experience of expert meditators does validate this.

That the Master -- the Self controls the brain for the expert meditators. And for fools like us, the chemicals have the upper hand because we have allowed the chemical reactions to control us?

...

 

[Left Coast]

Your passive-aggressive sarcasm is getting old, and it's betraying your apparently fragile ego.

I may speak honestly and bluntly when it's clear that someone doesn't understand the topic they're trying to argue, but I don't do it with an arrogant tone, because I don't believe I'm better than anyone. I've been very friendly to you, but you've responded negatively simply because I questioned your knowledge in this specific area.

There's plenty of fruitful discussion to be had here, but you seem to be doing your best to turn this into a dick measuring contest (congratulations on your multiple degrees; I'm sure we're all very impressed). You were an *** to me in our previous interaction, but I believe in second chances.

I guess maybe we'll see about a third, in the future.

Take care.

I don't think I responded negatively to you here. If anything, I went out of my way to be gracious. I don't mind being challenged - again, that is why I started a thread in the debate section. The whole point is to invite challenge. But if you don't think conversations with me are worth having, I genuinely meant it that there are lots of intelligent and educated people here who you might find more fruitful interaction with.

I also have no interest in "measuring penises" with you. My degrees are not in philosophy and there's plenty I haven't learned in the field, I'm sure. I intentionally went out of my way to try to make the conversation productive by suggesting you start a thread on the topic since you believe yourself to be better informed about it than I am.

I am sorry if I came across as rude or passive-aggressive. My intent was to be polite and gracious and to keep the conversation productive.

Have a nice evening.

 

[Left Coast]

So, you agree that Philosophical Naturalism is incoherent? If that is so, then what kind of materialism is coherent?

I don't think I'd say it's incoherent, just unfalsifiable. Similar to the way a non-physical god is.

 

[blü 2]

So you do something subjective "think" and declare that because you think it is objective, it is objective.

Yes, of course. We've been through this before. I acknowledge that science must ultimately have a subjective element, noting too that science well knows this and does its best to maximize objectivity; but that the winning quality of science is that it works.

Now stop avoiding the question and state clearly what this Something Else of yours is. It needs to be on the table too.

Or are you too ashamed of it to say it out loud?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, of course. We've been through this before. I acknowledge that science must ultimately have a subjective element, noting too that science well knows this and does its best to maximize objectivity; but that the winning quality of science is that it works.

Now stop avoiding the question and state clearly what this Something Else of yours is. It needs to be on the table too.

Or are you too ashamed of it to say it out loud?

That the world is fair in regards to knowledge.
It is right here for the cosmological principle and that is just one version of it. Ultimately you rely on the world to be fair and that in a non-physical property of a physical world.
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists. William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis."

You rely on that the world is fair and thus you can claim natural, material, physical and what not.

When I realized that to the full extend, I became religious, because that the world is fair, is supernatural. Supernatural as - of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe. That the world is fair as far as knowledge goes, is not within the visible observable universe.
That is how I am religious. That is all. In practice I am still an atheist and naturalist for all other concepts of the everyday world in practice.
Yet I am honest. I can't justify a fully natural world, when I use a non-natural assumption for knowledge.

There! I am not ashamed of saying it. Your version is dishonest, because it requires something of the world that it apparently is not, namely fair.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

To understand this, I have to be totally imbued with soma -- in other words, I need a strong drink.

I'll have what he's having, barkeep.

A part of the brain monitors the physical events that may be harmful to the physical body when I'm asleep and it warns and wakes me up. What is the part that is sleeping? What is that part comes to know of the warning? And what is that part which now wakes up?

I'll leave it to the people who study these things to tell me the answer.

If all these executive functions are performed by the brain as a result of which we have consciousness of "I am" and also diverse kinds of phenomenal consciousnesses, then why does the brain stop generating the "I am" sense when the breath leaves the body?

Do you mean at death? Because the answer is that brain and body function ceases at death. Or do you mean something else?

Is it not parsimonious to say that the consciousness that we call SELF links the three states of a deep sleep, dream, and waking and is the source of consciousness in all three states?

I recall that consciousness is thought to arise from the interaction of various of the brain's specialized functions, but that it's not fully understood.

You and I continue to differ as to whether the word 'consciousness' is appropriate for the sleep states. I say it's not. Indeed, I'm aware that experiments show that the conscious mind is the last to know what the brain has already decided to do and has already embarked on putting into action. The same would be true of our 'shark's brain' reflex actions, as in many sports, or removing the hand from the hot stove ─ all these things have already happened before consciousness is aware of them; certainly consciousness gets no chance to initiate or edit them. And in the past I've used the example of speech or typing ─ where are these words I'm uttering in the fraction of a second before I say / type them? Certainly not in consciousness.

The experience of expert meditators does validate this.

I was intrigued by your video, but they said again and again that no one knows the meaning or significance of what they've found (greatly increased 'gamma' brain wave activity).