As I said, there is no scientific validity to such a distinction. Human beings are natural and so are the things created by human beings. The "artificial" is just a specific type of natural thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

We can make a distinction between things that people make and things that aren't made by people.

If people are frustrated they have to ask themselves why they feel frustrated. — 3017amen

Because, for example, I asked you three or four times in a row if you'd either agree to not resort to saying "That's an explanation" or alternately think about and post your criteria for what counts as an explanation, and you wouldn't even address the issue. That's frustrating, because it's someone simply ignoring what you're saying, all while pretending that they want to have a conversation.

Hey come on now you know I was only kidding I love you guys! — 3017amen

I'd like you better if you'd have a real discussion instead of acting like a troll.

Good to see you own your condescending attitude! — Happenstance

You should have added an LOL

And there goes the buzzer

One more chance to answer the question I'm asking and not just keep retyping stuff like an OCD victim.

Again, before dropping the above and going back a few squares, you need to say whether you agree that you're not going to simply respond with "That's not an explanation" again.

If you don't agree to that, or alternately you don't give your criteria for explanations, I'm not interested.

Accident: event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Is that true or false? — 3017amen

If you're not going to answer any questions, why do you expect me to? You have to play fair.

I'm not interested in this as a game or as an ego-inflating exercise for you.

1. God does not exist.

True or false or something else? — 3017amen

I answered this already and I'll answer again, but you're not going to respond with "That's not an explanation," right?

Okay let's go back to this question — 3017amen

We're not going back to anything where you might respond with "That's not an explanation" if you don't set forth your criteria for explanations.

Do we agree to that? I'll go on, but not if you're just going to take a step back and respond again with "That's not an explanation" after a few posts back and forth, without you giving your criteria for explanations.

It's because I couldn't understand my conscienceness. — 3017amen

Say what? "But how could it be that you're unfamiliar with the notion of what an accident is"

That's what I wrote (implicationally) there

For example, I could say "3017amen is incapable of explaining how to spell the word 'cat.'"

And then in response to anything you say, I can write, "That's not an explanation."

Well, there's nothing you could do about that if I'm not going to give you what my criteria are for whether something counts as an explanation.

Did I then "prove" that you're not able to explain how to spell the word "cat"?

And I told you in the OP that you would not be able to explain many things about human existence including consciousness, and you are demonstrating the fact you can't. — 3017amen

I could say that you can't explain anything at all. All I'd need to do, with any explanation you offer, is say, "That's not (sufficient for) an explanation." If I decide to do that, what can you do about it?

Nothing.

That's why we'd need to set forth our criteria for explanations.

If I'm hard-wired to survive, you're suggesting my brain states willingly caused an accident my daydreaming. — 3017amen

The whole idea of an accident is that it's not intentional. So no. "Willingly" is intentional. It's as if you're not familiar with the idea of accidents. But how could that be?

I'm afraid you're far from explaining it. — 3017amen

Sure. Do you remember what I said about this idea? If I offer something as an explanation that you're going to respond to with "that's not an explanation," then you're going to need to set forth your criteria for explanations.

Explain why I have that feeling in physical terms? — 3017amen

I'll do this, but I'm not going to bother if you're just going to go, "That's not an explanation" or "That's far from explaining it" and that's the extent to which you address it.

So let's have your criteria for what counts, in general, as an explanation, so we can make sure that the explanation meets your criteria and you can't willy-nilly just say that it does not.

Is human sentience physical — 3017amen

Yes. I answered this already.

Re explaining the feeling you get when you look at red, how am I going to know the feeling that you get when you look at red (assuming for some odd reason that it would just be one feeling and not various feelings on different occasions, in different contexts)?

Re brain states for love, here: https://www.medicaldaily.com/what-love-mri-scan-reveals-what-stages-romantic-love-youre-brain-map-326080

Explain what happens when I'm not paying attention while driving a car having an accident and killing myself, explain that phenomenon? — 3017amen

I haven't the faintest idea why you'd see this as a mystery. You're not paying attention, and you do something careless as a result, like not stopping for a red light, as you suggested.

Yeah, just like a watch is a natural occurrence. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I'm using the sense of "natural" where it's distinct from "made by a person." So watches are artifacts, not natural occurrences in that sense. It's the natural/artificial distinction.

Sure, explain your meaning of brain states? — 3017amen

Nothing unusual. You know what a brain is, right? (Or do I need to explain that to you, too?) Brains are dynamic, in constantly changing electrochemical states, with different neurons activated to different degrees etc. at different times.

I'll make you a counteroffer, check with atheist Daniel Dennett in his book 'consciousness explained' and then we'll parse it. — 3017amen

What? You made a claim about what cognitive scientists claim re subconscious minds and accidents. I called bull on that claim. Why are you telling me to check something--I'm not the one making a claim about what cognitive scientists say, and why would you be telling me to check Dennett of all people? He's an eliminative materialist. He doesn't even buy that there are minds in the conventional "folk" sense. He's certainly not going to claim that we have subconscious minds and that they cause accidents.

In the meantime I'm learning that you really don't understand human consciousness do you? — 3017amen

I certainly do more than you, given the questions you're asking.

I'm confused what are brain States consciousness and subconsciousness working together? — 3017amen

I don't understand that question grammatically. Could you rewrite it?

But cognitive science says it was my subconscious are you refuting that? — 3017amen

I'd both refute that and I'm refuting the claim that cognitive science says that subconscious mental content causes accidents. I'll offer another wager to you about that, even. Find me something from an academic/peer-reviewed source in cognitive science that claims that subconscious mental content causes accidents and you win the bet.

What is human sentience then, how is that physical? — 3017amen

It's a set of brain states. Brains are physical.

But what if I simply can't pay attention and I have an accident what caused that? — 3017amen

I already said, the fact that you weren't paying attention caused it.

What in my consciousness caused that? — 3017amen

Nothing. The lack of conscious attention with respect to driving caused it.

Gotcha, then describe to me the color red? Or better yet, describe the feeling of love? — 3017amen

They make these things called "dictionaries" that will do this for you for any word you like. You can even get them in other languages.

Red - "of a color at the end of the spectrum next to orange and opposite violet, as of blood, fire, or rubies."

Love - "an intense feeling of deep affection"

That would mean your belief that God doesn't exist is a subjective truth? — 3017amen

Beliefs aren't truths period. Truth is a property of propositions. But yes, it would mean that the truth of "God does not exist" is subjective, because a fortiori, all truth-value is subjective. All this means is that truth-value is a judgment that we make about the relation of a proposition to something else. It's not saying anything about whether anything is a fact or not, it doesn't amount to saying that facts are subjective, etc.

So how can you demonstrate that God doesn't exist then? — 3017amen

One way you demonstrate it is empirically. By showing that everywhere you look, there's no god.

Another way you demonstrate it is via the fact that the notion of a nonphysical existent is incoherent. (I've already explained this many times.)

Using your logic from your quote, is that an objective truth or subjective truth? — 3017amen

Truth is never objective. Truth is a judgment we make--so a mental activity, about the relation of a proposition to something else. So by definition, it's subjective.

Forgive me for not following your logic. If I'm having an accident, what caused me to have that accident to kill myself? — 3017amen

In the scenario you're talking about, the simple fact that you're not paying much attention to what you're doing with respect to driving.

What can help you prevent it is to pay attention to it.

That's an ideal scenario we're asking for. However, I think the critical deciding factor is the resemblance between a watch and the universe - a certain set of principles which determines how each works. In that there's no doubt and so the inference to a designer isn't mistaken. — TheMadFool

Again, it would be an example of apophenia.

No one makes a universe. It's a natural occurrence.

Using consciousness, how can you prove that your belief is true? — 3017amen

"Proof" is a red herring. Empirical claims are not provable, and proof in the context of logic and mathematics is simply a matter of whether something follows per the system we've set up.

One way that I know the claim is true, though, is that the very idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent. I had mentioned this to you either earlier in this thread or in the previous thread.

I'm still confused. Are you saying you can get inside my head and objectively tell me whether my subjective truth is objective? — 3017amen

This is the first time you're introducing the word "objective." I hadn't said anything about that. Subjective truth isn't objective, of course. That's a simple contradiction. You don't need to repeat the adjective again, but subjective truth is subjective, obviously. That simply means that truth is something that occurs via mentality. Namely, it's a judgment about the relation of a proposition to something else.

But if I'm driving down the road daydreaming and kill myself in the process, what told me to do that? — 3017amen

What "told you" to have an accident? Nothing "tells you" to have an accident. It's an accident.

And so is the subconscious a phenomenon? — 3017amen

Not a mental phenomenon, no. Unconscious brain functions are not mental phenomena.

I'm confused. You are saying you have a belief in atheism. Does that mean you have a belief that God does not exist? — 3017amen

I have a (justified, true) belief that god does not exist, yes. (And I told you this in a post above, by the way.)

Are you saying you know the truth about subjective truths? — 3017amen

Sure, I'd say that (if you're asking from a meta, truth-theory perspective).

Interesting... I have many questions about your belief in consciousness, but I'll ask just one right now about phenomenon. What's the religious experience? Is that a phenomenon? — 3017amen

All experiences are conscious mental phenomena. "Experience" is a broad term for temporally -unfolding mental awareness of something.

Yes. Good point. Knowledge of watches is required to infer a watchmaker but the point is the universe does resemble a watch — TheMadFool

You'd need knowledge that universes are the sorts of things that are usually made by universe-makers.

You can characterize it as abductive, too.

I can't offhand think of a single word for other questions, but I'd say that a couple things that are different than a general what/why/etc. are inquiries into qualia--the qualitative, experiential aspects of something, and inquiries into aboutness, reference, connotation or meaning.

Of course, you could formulate questions about that stuff so that they begin with words like "What," but you can also reframe at least some "What" questions as "Why" questions (and vice versa), "Who" questions as "Which" questions (and vice versa), and so on.

Makes me wonder, again, if you are just presenting a persona here. — Coben

Again, maybe try not reading everything so literally? You know what condition that tendency is indicative of, don't you?

The way that we reach an abductive conclusion of there being a watchmaker from a watch is simply via knowledge that watches are artifacts that are intentionally made by people. We know (there are) watchmakers, we can observe them work, etc. If we didn't have such knowledge, the notion of a watchmaker wouldn't be justified.

As it is, we often make unjustified apophenic assumptions about things we experience. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia if you're unfamiliar with that.)

The reason to doubt your existence is a consequence of the difficulty to proof your existence — Daniel C

Either prove that P or it's implied that one must doubt that P is quite the false dichotomy.