Question for the atheist?

[mike123]

Untrue my man, untrue.

theres a whole lot of scientific data that'll suggest otherwise
from the tiny amount of the universe we've explored or the oceans on this planet
to the biological limitations on human senses and cognitive abilities

i could go on an on

And HOW the universe was created, is a different question than 'who' created it. And who's to say that answering THAT question is the LAST/ULTIMATE question. We only KNOW what we KNOW, nothing more nothing less. Belief is a whole separate matter.

JG

far enough
i should have said who/what, how and why
but the current scientific approach to trying to understand the universe and everything else is flawed, maybe because we havent evolved enough yet

I wont even get into the whole blind belief stuff

 

[sean69]

sean69

if you're arguing that personal experience ought to be one of the most revered aspects of a claim, then where do you draw the line? if schitzos believe that they are jesus christ or superman, should that claim be challenged or scrutinized or 'respected'? how about when someone claims that they were held down by a demon as they woke up (even tho that has been demonstrated in the lab)? while emotions including love can be beautiful and complex, they are not above being explained scientifically.

can you clarify this for me? when someone makes a claim that seems way off the cuff, do you go 'i doubt what that person said what they experienced, really happened' the way they described it or are you like 'well that was his personal experience so i can't really judge?

Count,
Fair enough. I guess you're saying that at the end of the day we have to be practical. No?

I've been studying cognitive neuroscience and behavioral psychology for a few years came to realize that there's a lot that we think we know about how we think and how the brain works with our nervous system. And we constantly making new discoveries as technology advances. The strides made with functional imaging wrt neurophysiological correlates of fundamental processes like memory and language for example. The prevailing paradigm in neuroscience is a representational (schematic) and attribution model of cognition. We don't have direct access to our pure mental states even though we think we do.

How exactly do you explain abstract emotions scientifically? What's your benchmark? Trust me this issue is hundreds of years deep in debate.

You're aware that no scientific test (organic lab experiments) currently exists to diagnose schizophrenia right? Diagnosis is based on observation and the patients reported experiences. It's mainly treated by psychoanalysis - barely a robust science.

This is the reason I asked the question about judgement of a person with dissociative personality disorder in a previous post. At the end of the day, the diagnosis of insanity is a statistical (Bayesian) one, as is most if not all scientific inferences. There's a lot of so-called sane folks walking around that are crazy as fuck. They're just all in the middle of the median bell curve.

I guess the question come down to what is normal and what isn't. I don't know that I wana get into that.

 

[sean69]

The issue the always emerges in exchanges relative to theism and atheism is that the terms are rarely agreed upon in advance, so misinterpretation is introduced in the beginning. For example. Religion and Spirituality, are you using them interchangeably? I understand what religion is . . . I don't have ANY idea what spirituality is. And I've witnessed too many people say they are 'spiritual' but not religious. So perhaps science and spirituality can co-exist. I dunno, don't know what it is. But religion and science clearly can't. The foundations are counter to each other.

JG

What's your definition of religion? Let's start there.

 

[KLEPTO]

I love these kinda threads.

me too

 

[John_Gault]

theres a whole lot of scientific data that'll suggest otherwise
from the tiny amount of the universe we've explored or the oceans on this planet
to the biological limitations on human senses and cognitive abilities

i could go on an on

I understand that humans have limitations sensory wise. However, despite those limitations, history reflects our capacity to get past said limitations. And Voila, we have modernity!

That doesn't mean we DO have the capacity to understand or know at this time. I say that to say, the limitations on either side aren't equal. Science overcomes it's limitations slowly. Religion isn't expected or required to, because it's faith based.

JG

 

[John_Gault]

What's your definition of religion? Let's start there.

The practice of faith and belief in a supernatural, omniscient being that is responsible for the creation and control of existence. . .

JG

 

[sean69]

The second bolded section is where you're wrong. It's wrong because like most Christians, you can't wrap your head around the first quote. You don't get it.

If I put an upside down cup in front of you, the Christian notion says that "there's a silver dollar under the cup."

Agnostics say, "why' would there be a silver dollar under the cup? Why do you believe that? Could be a quarter. A marble or something. Maybe, I don't know."

Atheists say, "there's no silver dollar under that cup. Silver dollars are rare, and I don't even see where the fuck you get that silver dollar shit, you pulled that right out of your ass. The cup is probably empty."

Your argument basically, as I read it, says that Atheists have to prove there is no silver dollar under the cup, just as Christians would have to prove there IS a silver dollar under the cup.

But the cup will never get lifted. So no one will ever really know.

But the nature of living as a Christian says the Christian has to live every day knowing that there IS a silver dollar under the cup. The nature of the Atheist is to live like there's no cup at all. So what does he have to prove?

I myself am agnostic. I don't have faith that if there is a God, he cares about us. Or that we need to worship him. Or that one of our versions is correct. But I'm not opposed to a God. I'd love one. I just don't see much in the way of the world to have any kind of certainty.

*sigh*

So, why don't you tell me what I'm about to do ....

.....


.....now!?





Your argument basically, as I read it, says that Atheists have to prove there is no silver dollar under the cup, just as Christians would have to prove there IS a silver dollar under the cup.

But the cup will never get lifted. So no one will ever really know.

But you claim that science is steadily lifting the cup? Or don't you?

Why dose there have to be a proof that there's a silver dollar under the cup?

Oh, because silver dollars are "rare".

Did you even think your analogy, allegory, whatever, through?

 

[sean69]

I've seen what you've written, and I have seen rebuttals. Thats what I write about. I also know you are attempting to play devils advocate. You're not the first. It's cute, but it's off. The reason that it's bullshit has already been pointed out. I gave you credit for having SOME good ideas, a decent knowledge base, and the ability to expound like many a preacher on the mound. I appreciate it actually, but now that it's been put to bed by Count23, wny not just give it a rest? Great questions, you got great answers. I enjoyed the debate, it's come full circle at least TWICE. Wanna keep going? I'm cool on that.


I've been in a lot of these threads. I read em, and I typically only interject when there is something I can chime in on. I did when you, a writer who's ideas I respected, went a bit astray from what I expected from such a mind. Nothing else to say. I will keep reading though.

Scroll up and read my reply to JG. I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. lol. Perhaps you should let Count23 argue his case, unless your his council?

At any rate, you've said nothing here. 'preciatet he paragraph though.

 

[exiledking]

Scroll up and read my reply to JG. I'm not playing Devil's Advocate. lol. Perhaps you should let Count23 argue his case, unless your his council?

At any rate, you've said nothing here. 'preciatet he paragraph though.

plus I forgot to mention that the OP was so far off in the inital question that it aint worth it to mix it up in here. You should start your own thread with your own questions, cuz it looks like you are aligned with ... well

 

[sean69]

The practice of faith and belief in a supernatural, omniscient being that is responsible for the creation and control of existence. . .

JG

My definition:
re-ligare, i.e. re = "again" and ligare = "to reconnect"

The desire to reconnect with our ultimate origins/purpose of existence. For some it involve the anthropomorphic construction of a demiurge type being and adhering by faith to a whole dogma around that. For me, it's more of an experience furnishes my "reconnection" with my essence.
I really lack the vocab to explain it but what it's not to me is a belief SYSTEM or INSTITUTION founded on a SUPERnatural being.


OK. I'm going to bed now. This was fun.

 

[sean69]

plus I forgot to mention that the OP was so far off in the inital question that it aint worth it to mix it up in here. You should start your own thread with your own questions, cuz it looks like you are aligned with ... well

Panentheism? Holism?


I agree, the OP's initial question was flawed. I said that in my first post.

I actually have a few threads already started that sort of touch on these issues but in a less abrasive way ... I'd hope.

 

[Punch]

You should start your own thread with your own questions

One was started ....but a dud nonetheless so all efforting was redirected to this thread to continue the agenda. Some of us figured it out.

 

[mike123]

I understand that humans have limitations sensory wise. However, despite those limitations, history reflects our capacity to get past said limitations. And Voila, we have modernity!

That doesn't mean we DO have the capacity to understand or know at this time. I say that to say, the limitations on either side aren't equal. Science overcomes it's limitations slowly. Religion isn't expected or required to, because it's faith based.

JG

I would say that history reflects our ability to make practical choices that lead to workarounds and minor advancements that helped cover up our limitations but as of yet many of those limitations are still waitin on us to do something about them

but other than that i agree
organized religions for the most part arent gonna get anybody anywhere

but true spirituality is another thing entirely

 

[dzlkdd]

*sigh*

So, why don't you tell me what I'm about to do ....

.....


.....now!?





Your argument basically, as I read it, says that Atheists have to prove there is no silver dollar under the cup, just as Christians would have to prove there IS a silver dollar under the cup.

But the cup will never get lifted. So no one will ever really know.

But you claim that science is steadily lifting the cup? Or don't you?

Why dose there have to be a proof that there's a silver dollar under the cup?

Oh, because silver dollars are "rare".

Did you even think your analogy, allegory, whatever, through?

You don't get how loose analogies work do you? you really got confused because i threw in a line about silver dollars being rare, and thought that was my argument? REALLY?

Yeah, you still don't get it. More ill-conceived arguments that still presupposes Atheists and agnostics have to prove something. Don't sweat it. I'll explain one more time.

but first: NO, I don't claim that science is steadily lifting the cup. I don't even know where science entered my argument in your hostile little religious head. And NO there doesn't have to be proof that there's a silver dollar under the cup. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, reverend.

If there was proof, we'd all be Christians, wouldn't we?

Lift up that cup and show us the silver dollar and the atheists will say "yes, that's a silver dollar."

Lift up that cup and there's no silver dollar and Christians will say, "It's there, you just don't have the faith to see it."

Ever hear of that word before, "faith"?

What it means is that some people believe without proof. Some people don't believe without significant proof. And some people believe that the lack of proof is proof in itself. Those are atheists.

They don't have "faith" that there is no God. They just believe that there is no God.

And I hope I don't have to explain the difference between believing something and having faith in something...

By the way... lift up the cup and there's a dime under it and agnostics and atheists would say "oh, it's a dime." The Christian would say "no, it must be a new type of silver dollar."

 

[exiledking]

Panentheism? Holism?


I agree, the OP's initial question was flawed. I said that in my first post.

I actually have a few threads already started that sort of touch on these issues but in a less abrasive way ... I'd hope.

looking at some of the responses, I see why you're asking questions. SOme people are drawing false conclusions all over the place

 

[Count23]

Count,
Fair enough. I guess you're saying that at the end of the day we have to be practical. No?

I've been studying cognitive neuroscience and behavioral psychology for a few years came to realize that there's a lot that we think we know about how we think and how the brain works with our nervous system. And we constantly making new discoveries as technology advances. The strides made with functional imaging wrt neurophysiological correlates of fundamental processes like memory and language for example. The prevailing paradigm in neuroscience is a representational (schematic) and attribution model of cognition. We don't have direct access to our pure mental states even though we think we do.

How exactly do you explain abstract emotions scientifically? What's your benchmark? Trust me this issue is hundreds of years deep in debate.

You're aware that no scientific test (organic lab experiments) currently exists to diagnose schizophrenia right? Diagnosis is based on observation and the patients reported experiences. It's mainly treated by psychoanalysis - barely a robust science.

This is the reason I asked the question about judgement of a person with dissociative personality disorder in a previous post. At the end of the day, the diagnosis of insanity is a statistical (Bayesian) one, as is most if not all scientific inferences. There's a lot of so-called sane folks walking around that are crazy as fuck. They're just all in the middle of the median bell curve.

I guess the question come down to what is normal and what isn't. I don't know that I wana get into that.

You read this? If so, what are your thoughts (it's not apart of my reply btw I was just wondering)?

Schizophrenia, while as you pointed out may not be determined in the lab right now, is treatable chemically, which at least suggests that it is a biological function that can be studied, at least theoretically right now.

You're right, the arguments about about abstract emotions have been debated for years. However, if they did not arise biologically, then how is it that feelings can be manipulated by chemical usage, or brain damage?
Remember humans have only been able to study the brain at this level since fairly recently in our history.

As far as what is normal, do you mean normal as in cultural norms, or as in the nature of reality? I assuming you meant the latter, but I look at it like this. Reality is subjective. To a point. If reality was completely subjective, then science or even everyday interaction as we know it would be very hard to grasp. What we perceive around us is not the 'complete' real world but a reconstruction perceived by our brains which evolved a certain way. Our brains are incapable of grasping the whole picture, however this does not deny that there is a nature of reality. A human's expeience of the world differs from a dogs' which differs from a fly, which differs from a whale and so on and so forth. However If a person is convinced through personal experience that they are invincible, that belief will not stop them from getting hurt/killed if they are shot.

Why is it, when someone claims personal experience it always has to do with phenomena that cannot be supported by external evidence? There are many phenomena that humans are incapapable of perceiving (light spectrum, germs, the wide range of scent etc) on our own, without the use of our tools, yet nobody ever tries to claim that they can see the full light spectrum, of that their olfactory sense is on par with a bloodhound.

Bruh am I wrong for being skeptical when people can only cite personal experience for something extraordinary, especially if I have an idea how easily our brains are suseptible to illusions?

 

[sean69]

You don't get how loose analogies work do you? you really got confused because i threw in a line about silver dollars being rare, and thought that was my argument? REALLY?

Yeah, you still don't get it. More ill-conceived arguments that still presupposes Atheists and agnostics have to prove something. Don't sweat it. I'll explain one more time.

but first: NO, I don't claim that science is steadily lifting the cup. I don't even know where science entered my argument in your hostile little religious head. And NO there doesn't have to be proof that there's a silver dollar under the cup. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, reverend.

If there was proof, we'd all be Christians, wouldn't we?

Lift up that cup and show us the silver dollar and the atheists will say "yes, that's a silver dollar."

Lift up that cup and there's no silver dollar and Christians will say, "It's there, you just don't have the faith to see it."

Ever hear of that word before, "faith"?

What it means is that some people believe without proof. Some people don't believe without significant proof. And some people believe that the lack of proof is proof in itself. Those are atheists.

They don't have "faith" that there is no God. They just believe that there is no God.

And I hope I don't have to explain the difference between believing something and having faith in something...

By the way... lift up the cup and there's a dime under it and agnostics and atheists would say "oh, it's a dime." The Christian would say "no, it must be a new type of silver dollar."

Hostile religious head... That ad hominem shit is played out man You sound a bit perturbed. Mad even? You're typing all hectic and shit. Relax. Breathe.

Do I have to type that i'm not arguing for Christianity in bold caps Arial font size 7 for you to get it? Or you just have a love affair with straw-men?

You: "Atheists say, "there's no silver dollar under that cup. Silver dollars are rare,..."

Me: Right. Rare ...

You: "blah blah blah blah, you're a dumb Christian, blah, blah, blah, proof, blah, blah, ...

 

[Adam Knows]

close thread

!stolen!

 

[Adam Knows]

And I can state that 1 + 1 = 0

1 + 1 = 1 + sqrt(1)
= 1 + sqrt[(-1)(-1)]

= 1 + sqrt(-1) x sqrt(-1)

= 1 + [sqrt(-1)]^2

= 1 + (-1)

= 0




@ some of the shit i'm reading in this thread

now they've resorted to attacking absolutes?

 

[sean69]

You read this? If so, what are your thoughts (it's not apart of my reply btw I was just wondering)?

It's on my book shelf right now up next after i'm done with this ...

Schizophrenia, while as you pointed out may not be determined in the lab right now, is treatable chemically, which at least suggests that it is a biological function that can be studied, at least theoretically right now.

Yes, the neurophysiological outcomes of schizophrenia can be studied. I never denied that. All I was saying was that the neurocognitive deficits associated with it are attended to by psychoanalysis/psychotherapies of the SYMPTOMS.
Of course in combination with physical data from brain imaging one can draw some correlations with brain regions and states.

My whole point is this:

Science doesn't fully understand the underlying cause of schizophrenia but the prevailing BELIEF is that it's a combination of physiological and psychological brain states, the later being far less amenable to the scientific method.
Unless someone solved the Mind/Body problem and I wasn't aware of it.

You're right, the arguments about about abstract emotions have been debated for years. However, if they did not arise biologically, then how is it that feelings can be manipulated by chemical usage, or brain damage?
Remember humans have only been able to study the brain at this level since fairly recently in our history.

From your question it appears to me that your philosophy is essentially materialist. Only matter and it's physical interactions exist and immaterial stuff like emotions are epiphenomena at best - the result of chemical interactions. Correct me if i'm wrong.

Again, the mind/body problem.

We can use chemicals to alter our emotional/mental states.
We can explain and understand the physical interactions of these chemicals with the biochemicals in our bodies based on our conventions of chemistry, biology and physics.
We can make correlations to effects.
We can statistics, models and theory to validate.

Now I have a question.

How do you explain self-induced (emotional) cortical neuroplasticity? The 'rewiring' of neural networks in the brain and consequently brain function (behavior, response to physical stimuli etc) without the use of external chemicals? By what mechanism does the mind (thought) achieve this? Sure you can analyze the brain in a lab and observe changes in brain states and detect the release of biochemicals (neurotransmitters, endorphines, etc) but what's the physics of this?

If you have any information (scientific journal article, data, etc) that even begins to scratch the surface of this please share.

As far as what is normal, do you mean normal as in cultural norms, or as in the nature of reality? I assuming you meant the latter, but I look at it like this. Reality is subjective. To a point. If reality was completely subjective, then science or even everyday interaction as we know it would be very hard to grasp. What we perceive around us is not the 'complete' real world but a reconstruction perceived by our brains which evolved a certain way. Our brains are incapable of grasping the whole picture, however this does not deny that there is a nature of reality.

If our brains are incapable of the full nature of reality then how can be claim the existence of a complete reality??
Maybe it's just me but this sounds a lot like that dreaded "F" word. Faith. Either that or baseless presumption. Which would actually be the same as faith according to atheists.

You see, its the human ego that makes it so hard for us to accept the notion that reality is in fact subjective. Even when there's actual physical scientific evidence consistent with fundamental theory to support the fact. This is why we have over a dozen different interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and terms like "local hidden variables".
Our perception of an objective world is, for lack of a better word, an illusion.

A human's expeience of the world differs from a dogs' which differs from a fly, which differs from a whale and so on and so forth.

We don't have direct access to our own mental states what makes us think we understand what other animals experience??

However If a person is convinced through personal experience that they are invincible, that belief will not stop them from getting hurt/killed if they are shot.

Why is it, when someone claims personal experience it always has to do with phenomena that cannot be supported by external evidence? There are many phenomena that humans are incapapable of perceiving (light spectrum, germs, the wide range of scent etc) on our own, without the use of our tools, yet nobody ever tries to claim that they can see the full light spectrum, of that their olfactory sense is on par with a bloodhound.

Bruh am I wrong for being skeptical when people can only cite personal experience for something extraordinary, especially if I have an idea how easily our brains are suseptible to illusions?

No, you're not wrong.
I completely empathize with your perspective here. I'm not saying that we shouldn't exercise skepticism nor am I suggesting that skepticism is a redundant trait. All I'm saying is that we need to exercise an equal level of prudence when making absolute judgments and assertions and realize that the physical dispositions AS WELL AS emotional and mental states of each and everyone of us play a central role is the description of all of reality.

An extraordinary phenomena is only such because of its statistics.

What most that are coming at me in this thread don't quite get is that i'm not in here arguing sociopolitical implication of religious institution or defending crazy Christian fundamentalists. That's too pedestrian IMO.

 

[sean69]

now they've resorted to attacking absolutes?

*looks at the name*

Oh wait. never mind. lol.

 

[Adam Knows]

*looks at the name*

Oh wait. never mind. lol.

don't get mad because you pray to an imaginary omnipotent being who supposedly knows all and sees all according to william shakespeare and any other crackpot over the ages that contributed to this nonsense.....

i'd believe in little bug eyed gray men from the planet x before i believe in an a deity that pacifies the foolish....

 

[sean69]

don't get mad because you pray to an imaginary omnipotent being who supposedly knows all and sees all according to william shakespeare and any other crackpot over the ages that contributed to this nonsense.....

i'd believe in little bug eyed gray men from the planet x before i believe in an a deity that pacifies the foolish....

Don't post stupid shit without thinking and then post nervous laughter smiley faces when you get owned.

 

[Count23]

It's on my book shelf right now up next after i'm done with this ...

added to the cart

Yes, the neurophysiological outcomes of schizophrenia can be studied. I never denied that. All I was saying was that the neurocognitive deficits associated with it are attended to by psychoanalysis/psychotherapies of the SYMPTOMS.
Of course in combination with physical data from brain imaging one can draw some correlations with brain regions and states.

My whole point is this:

Science doesn't fully understand the underlying cause of schizophrenia but the prevailing BELIEF is that it's a combination of physiological and psychological brain states, the later being far less amenable to the scientific method.
Unless someone solved the Mind/Body problem and I wasn't aware of it.

Word. I get that, and as far as I know, the mind/body problem has not be satisfactorily resolved.

From your question it appears to me that your philosophy is essentially materialist. Only matter and it's physical interactions exist and immaterial stuff like emotions are epiphenomena at best - the result of chemical interactions. Correct me if i'm wrong.

nah, sounds like me (although this is not set in stone)

Again, the mind/body problem.

We can use chemicals to alter our emotional/mental states.
We can explain and understand the physical interactions of these chemicals with the biochemicals in our bodies based on our conventions of chemistry, biology and physics.
We can make correlations to effects.
We can statistics, models and theory to validate.

Now I have a question.

How do you explain self-induced (emotional) cortical neuroplasticity? The 'rewiring' of neural networks in the brain and consequently brain function (behavior, response to physical stimuli etc) without the use of external chemicals? By what mechanism does the mind (thought) achieve this? Sure you can analyze the brain in a lab and observe changes in brain states and detect the release of biochemicals (neurotransmitters, endorphines, etc) but what's the physics of this?

If you have any information (scientific journal article, data, etc) that even begins to scratch the surface of this please share.

I won't even front on you, I am not aware of any scientific journal that conclusively explains the mechanisms of neuroplasticity. I have a question for you tho. Does this mean that due to the limitations of our understanding neuroplasticity today, that you may ascribe the 'blind spots' of our knowledge to something immaterial like a soul? If so, how is this not the god of the gaps argument all over again?

If our brains are incapable of the full nature of reality then how can be claim the existence of a complete reality??
Maybe it's just me but this sounds a lot like that dreaded "F" word. Faith. Either that or baseless presumption. Which would actually be the same as faith according to atheists.

You see, its the human ego that makes it so hard for us to accept the notion that reality is in fact subjective. Even when there's actual physical scientific evidence consistent with fundamental theory to support the fact. This is why we have over a dozen different interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and terms like "local hidden variables".
Our perception of an objective world is, for lack of a better word, an illusion.

Hence me saying in my last post 'subjective to a point'

Subjective in the sense that humans cannot see the full light spectrum without the aid of tools. Objective in the sense that if a person made the claim that they can see the full light spectrum without aid, they would be met with high skepticism, until they were able to be otherwise convincing. The study of atoms suggest that they are very much spaced apart at the quantum level when making up matter, yet nobody will make the claim that they can see these spaces un-aided when looking at, say a wall.

Our brains evolved to perceive reality on a certain level like in the examples I mentioned above. Our collective, un-aided subjective reality, is also our collective "objective" reality. I hope I'm being clear here.

We don't have direct access to our own mental states what makes us think we understand what other animals experience??

we may not (ever) completely understand/empathize with another animal's subjective experience, but we can have an idea. For example, we know that dogs generally posses a sense of smell that puts ours to shame. Wouldn't something like that affect its experience of reality?

No, you're not wrong.
I completely empathize with your perspective here. I'm not saying that we shouldn't exercise skepticism nor am I suggesting that skepticism is a redundant trait. All I'm saying is that we need to exercise an equal level of prudence when making absolute judgments and assertions and realize that the physical dispositions AS WELL AS emotional and mental states of each and everyone of us play a central role is the description of all of reality.

An extraordinary phenomena is only such because of its statistics.

Word. I agree. This is also one of the reasons why I believe that skeptical reasoning from as much people as possible can help mitigate personal feelings from clouding the results. Challenging established ideas, usually leads to growth.

What most that are coming at me in this thread don't quite get is that i'm not in here arguing sociopolitical implication of religious institution or defending crazy Christian fundamentalists. That's too pedestrian IMO.

 

[GeeZnu]

i choose not to believe in someone or something that floods the earth just to prove a point to a mofo that he so called created . if this dude created everything he also created suffering and the devil so i say fuck your god

 

[sean69]

added to the cart

No doubt. It's a great read so far. You'll like it.





I won't even front on you, I am not aware of any scientific journal that conclusively explains the mechanisms of neuroplasticity. I have a question for you tho. Does this mean that due to the limitations of our understanding neuroplasticity today, that you may ascribe the 'blind spots' of our knowledge to something immaterial like a soul? If so, how is this not the god of the gaps argument all over again?

Identical twins that have basically the same genetic (physical) make up behave (psychological) differently because of differences in the expression of genes which is in turn due to differences in environmental input.
What actually triggers this gene expression? What's responsible for how DNA 'behaves'? What's between the transition from gene to trait? You can keep asking these questions to the most fundamental "particles" that make up matter.

Fill in the gap with whatever you want but my guess is that you'll continue to infinite regress before you come up with something physical.



Hence me saying in my last post 'subjective to a point'

Subjective in the sense that humans cannot see the full light spectrum without the aid of tools. Objective in the sense that if a person made the claim that they can see the full light spectrum without aid, they would be met with high skepticism, until they were able to be otherwise convincing. The study of atoms suggest that they are very much spaced apart at the quantum level when making up matter, yet nobody will make the claim that they can see these spaces un-aided when looking at, say a wall.

Our brains evolved to perceive reality on a certain level like in the examples I mentioned above. Our collective, un-aided subjective reality, is also our collective "objective" reality. I hope I'm being clear here.

Do you notice how the highlighted above ^^^ ... sound sounds a lot like a religious dictum?




we may not (ever) completely understand/empathize with another animal's subjective experience, but we can have an idea. For example, we know that dogs generally posses a sense of smell that puts ours to shame. Wouldn't something like that affect its experience of reality?

The dogs experience of reality relative to what? (think about your answer for a minute ...)










Word. I agree. This is also one of the reasons why I believe that skeptical reasoning from as much people as possible can help mitigate personal feelings from clouding the results. Challenging established ideas, usually leads to growth.

true.

...

 

[Count23]

@sean69

1) how about simply saying I don't know, and leave it at that until better information is found?

2) the point is tho, am i wrong? is there any evidence of people seeing the full spectrum of light, or having a dog's sense of smell tho?

3) They experience reality differently relative to humans. Or to a dolphin. Or to a cockroach. Or to a rat.

 

[sean69]

@sean69

1) how about simply saying i don't know, and leave it at that until better information is found?

saying i don't know to what? i'm confused.
how about trying to find that information?



2) the point is tho, am i wrong? Is there any evidence of people seeing the full spectrum of light, or having a dog's sense of smell tho?

not that i know of. But what's the relevance of this? I don't get it?


3) they experience reality differently relative to humans. Or to a dolphin. Or to a cockroach. Or to a rat.

you don't know this and you never will be able to.

and you still didn't answer my question: The dogs experience of reality relative to what?

 

[Count23]

1)??

2) I said in a previous post that our reality perceived by our brains as a species is subjective, (constrained) becuz we evoloved a certain way. However within these constraints, it can be argued that there some things that are objective to us. Thats where I brought up the light spectrum and quantum examples.

Subjective reality (species): human beings cannot perceive the full light spectrum that exists without tools.

Objective reality(species): I can more or less say that all human beings cannot perceive the full spectrum of light.

While it can be argued that all of what we perceive is illusion, it can also be argued that this illusion has been hardwired in our brains due to evolution making it on some level "objective". It may not be rigid, but it does have constraints.

3)dawg, I don't know what its like to be born a blind person either, but I can make a safe bet that how they perceive reality, is not the same as how I do. I'm not saying that I can "imagine" how dogs experience reality, I'm just saying that it is reasonable to assume that with different brains, limbs, and maximizing different senses, that they would be experiencing reality a different way from us. How different? I'll never know.

 

[cbm_redux]

If you dont believe in a God, any God. That means you must be all knowing or Omniscience.

First of all, the word is omniscient, dummy. Secondly, it means no such thing. Your conclusion is laughably preposterous. Learn how to reason logically.

 

[sean69]

1)??

you asked me "how about saying you don't know"

i'm asking you, saying i don't know about what?


2) I said in a previous post that our reality perceived by our brains as a species is subjective, (constrained) becuz we evoloved a certain way. However within these constraints, it can be argued that there some things that are objective to us. Thats where I brought up the light spectrum and quantum examples.

Subjective reality (species): human beings cannot perceive the full light spectrum that exists without tools.

Some things that are objective to us like what?

Your light spectrum example, the fact that we can't naturally see in, say, infra red, doesn't mean that phenomena that exist in that wave-length range are subjective and that visual aid by a spectrometer somehow makes them objective. No. It just simply means that we can't cognitively process information in that spectral range. The information is still there we just can't mentally access it.


Objective reality(species): I can more or less say that all human beings cannot perceive the full spectrum of light.

I'm still confused about what this means. But even so, this is a you don't know this as an absolute fact because you haven't tested every human being on the planet. I'm guessing that's why you said "more or less".
And yes, more or less is all we've got.



While it can be argued that all of what we perceive is illusion, it can also be argued that this illusion has been hardwired in our brains due to evolution making it on some level "objective". It may not be rigid, but it does have constraints.

I disagree.



3)dawg, I don't know what its like to be born blind either, but I can make a safe bet that how they perceive reality, is not the same as how I do. I'm not saying that I can "imagine" how dogs experience reality, I'm just saying that it is reasonable to assume that with different brains, limbs, and maximizing different senses, that they would be experiencing reality a different way from us. How different? I'll never know.

Reasonable to assume. Fair enough.

Of course you can do experiments to support the claim that animals don't posses the sentience or self-awareness that humans do. But anthropocentric bias in the field of animal behavior and cognition is a major issue. So is the so called "Clever Hans Effect" for example. (click the hyperlink and read that article it's pretty cool)

...

 

[Count23]

1) Oh ok I see. I was referring to gaps in our knowledge when I said "I don't know"

2) It just simply means that we can't cognitively process information in that spectral range. The information is still there we just can't mentally access it.

Saying that human perception is subjective in certain specific ways is itself an objective statement (until shown otherwise) Maybe my wording was bad.

3) Pretty much

4)Maybe how I phrased it was wrong, but going by what you said earlier in your post, you sorta do.

5)Fair enough. I'll check the link

 

[capcomq]

Assuming there is one is a safer bet than assuming there isnt one. Even if I am wrong, what was the harm. Now lets say there is one and your atheist, then your fucked.

Yep.

 

[sean69]

Saying that human perception is subjective in certain specific ways is itself an objective statement (until shown otherwise) Maybe my wording was bad.

Look, you're right, it's ok to just say you don't know. I'm actually fine with not knowing. Unlike some, it doesn't threaten my ego as a scientist.
But the physics of matter as described by quantum theory has shown us that
the interpretation of observations and measurements at the subatomic scale and more recently the molecular scale (with molecules as large as C60), the double-slit experiment, etc, are subjective.
Look up the term 'Cognitive Closure'. The human desire to eliminate ambiguity and subjectivity in order to get definite objective answers - often times through irrational thinking ...


4)Maybe how I phrased it was wrong, but going by what you said earlier in your post, you sorta do.

What are you talking about?

...

 

[Count23]

1) I think that we can more or less agree with this one

2) "The information is still there we just can't mentally access it."

^^^I was referring to this line that you typed. This is an objective statement on the human subjective experience of reality.

BTW I've just started reading this

you read it yet?

Also, just to bring this discussion full circle, is not the need for cognitive closure, what drove humans to develop religions, and the idea of god(s) to explain things that they had no explanation for?