It would seem your audience is rather faithless — Shamshir

I was trying to refer, gently, to your audience. My attempt at diplomacy (not a talent I actually have). More directly: speak clearly or get ignored. Your riddles are too much like hard work, for very little reward. Sorry. :meh:

The intimation is work=death, or at least not living. — Anthony

That about sums it up, I'm afraid. Our problem is not that we resent the work one has to do to support oneself, but the amount of work, and the way we work, for reasons of unjustifiable greed.

The elephant in the #ClimateChange room is #Consumption, and the father of the herd is #AmericanCapitalism. We need to learn to #consume out of NEED, not GREED; to take only our share of what the world can spare. — My 'pinned tweet'

you take great pride in the fact that you are an engineer, and not part of the unwashed masses. — removedmembershiprc

I too am an engineer. We are very much part of the "unwashed masses". We work for a living, and we make stuff. We are distinct only from those who make nothing, either supervising those who do, or living off family money.

No-one's immune from bias, it seems. — Pattern-chaser


I think it is unseemly to justify one's own biases by noting that everyone has them. — Janus

Making straw men is a nice hobby, but.... :meh: To recognise and admit bias is different from justifying it.

Clarity and simplicity, y'know? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Tangling yourself up in an effort to untangle is my method of exploration — Shamshir

I have found that, if I am unclear, my audience is unwilling to spend the time trying to work out what I intended. They ignore me and move on. Clarity and simplicity are what we put into our writing for the benefit of those who read our words.... :chin:

Also, how do you figure the mind is a soul? And immaterial at that, if it's a part of your brain..? — Swan

You answered this, just a few words previously:

the mind is something that your brain is generating — Swan

A running program is quite distinct from the hardware on which it runs. Although brain/mind-computer analogies aren't great, it will do in this case, I think. The mind is not part of the brain, it's an emergent property of the brain. Not the same thing at all.

It's all just a reference to an omission.
And the omission is context. — Shamshir

Then why not just say so? You post riddles, and expect us to telepathically discover your point. Clarity and simplicity, y'know? :wink:

So the real question is, do we have what it takes to come up with a description resembling The Creator of the universe? — staticphoton

Excellent! Rather than trying to describe God, you wonder whether humans are capable of describing Her ... as a good philosopher should! :up: :smile: Thanks for the comments. :smile:

Yes, it is about seeing the universe as a conglomeration of systems, basically. — Pantagruel

Many programmers come upon the realisation that 'everything is a network', which is more or less the case. But because everything is a network, it means less than it might if the description only applied to a few things. :smile: This looks to me like a similar observation? :chin: Interesting, though.

I blame women. Eve and Pandora in particular. And that is non trivial and highly satisfactory to most men. — unenlightened

:rofl: Very unenlightened!!! :rofl:

:smile: :up: Nit-pick: PERSECUTED minorities. Billionaires are in a minority.... :wink:

:up: :rofl:

I've noticed, over the years, a growing 'philosophy should stay away from anything scientific' — Coben

Yes I have noticed that: sciencists want everyone to use science exclusively for any and every example of considered investigation or thought...

Then people line up on their teams, tend not to call out their own team for its mistakes and overreaching — Coben

...so it just goes to show that we notice what we want/expect to notice, just as our senses show us what we expect to see, not (necessarily) what's there. :smile: :yikes: No-one's immune from bias, it seems. :chin: :rofl:

Should I mention that knowledge is widely considered to be a species of belief? — unenlightened

Best not, eh? :wink: :rofl:

↪unenlightened You are correct about the potential parochial and arbitrary nature of 'belief'... — fresco

I think you may have missed @unenlightened's point, which was not about belief but the standards of discussion in certain cases. :chin:

Personally, I'm comfortable with A. W. Moore's take on it, from his book, The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: "Metaphysics is the most general attempt to make sense of things." — Jack-N

Thanks for that!Excellent. :smile:

You can see that 2 + 3 = 5, yes? — Bartricks

Are you some kind of scientific literalist? Your arithmetic example is true by definition, if we first accept a raft of axioms and number-related mathematical theorems. If we don't, then "2 + 3 = 5" is a collection of meaningless symbols. You present your example as though it is indisputable, apparently unaware of its origins and meaning. You aren't helping your case.... :chin:

If the system auto-prunes doubled trailing spaces, then that's that. We might as well consider whether we're brains in vats. We are discussing an issue that has already been resolved; do we really think the code that runs the site is going to be changed as a result of these discussions? As @T Clark said,

you guys have taken a deeply meaningful and, frankly, moving thread about new names for the forum and turned it into a dumb-ass discussion about dumb-ass rules of punctuation. I applaud your efforts. — T Clark

That goes for me too. Even, after careful consideration, the final stab of sarcasm. :razz:

I repeat:

Have you come to our forum to prevent us from pursuing our interests here? — Pattern-chaser

I'm not all that interested to hear your judgements on this forum, or its members. I inhabit this place because I want to, but I'm not forced to stay, or to take part. The same applies to you. You just seem to be complaining that this forum doesn't operate as it would if you were in control. ... And you do so by insulting the forum and some of its members. Even as an autist, I can guess this could be a poor approach to the issue. 'Poor' as in 'it is unlikely to achieve anything'.

I just read gnostic agnostic as basically two words that mean the same thing — Gnostic Christian Bishop

A surprising decision on your part. :gasp: The prefix "a-" means not or without. The implication seems to be that any word you choose can be converted to its approximate opposite by adding the "A-" prefix. So I don't think they are "two words that mean the same thing"! I can't understand how you would. :chin:

So I was right. :sad: You are here to express your intolerance of discussions that you feel are without merit. What of those who choose to take part in these discussions? Have you come to our forum to prevent us from pursuing our interests here? If you don't like certain discussions, ignore them. We all do it. We only join the discussions we want to. You should do the same, I suggest. :chin:

it seems to me that the quality of discussion on these prolific religious threads falls far short of 'philosophical debate' or even 'coherence' for participants — fresco

Then don't read them? :chin: In fairness, most of the threads you refer to aim at interesting aspects of religion and religious belief. That they often dissolve into less admirable discussions is just a fact of life, and of human nature. But discussion is good, no matter how many times individual discussions fail. If, as an atheist, you find that you are not entertained or educated by these 'debates', the simple answer is to ignore them and carry on living your life, as most true atheists do with God. They are indifferent to the whole discussion, and simply choose not to take part. Isn't that the way to go?

Or do you wish to change this forum, so as not to tolerate these religious discussions? :chin:

The question you're asking is huge. People have literally written books on who/what god is, they still do all the time. I don't think it is realistic to find a one size fits all description it's just more of a personal answer thing. — Sunnyside

I can't disagree. The aim of this topic is laudable, I think, but quite possibly unattainable, as you suggest. :smile:

Nothing important... — Shamshir

Then we're done here. :up:

A scientist investigating pain must ask his patient about the pain they're feeling, he cannot measure it directly. — Isaac

A doctor may be scientifically-trained, but her methods are not those of a scientist. There is good reason for this. Her subjects are humans, so there's a lot of subjective communication, and a lot of partiality, going on. That is entirely correct and appropriate for a doctor. But it goes against science as it is practised. For as long as science continues to worship impartial and external observation, it cannot investigate any human-related matters like this one. And so it will be inferior to another discipline that is able to do more than the scientist.

This isn't the fault of the scientist, or of science. It's down to how science works. We might just as well complain that trees don't grow fur instead of leaves. Science is constrained. This is one price it pays for the investigative power it wields. Philosophy is a Swiss Army knife; science, in contrast, is a stiletto*. If stabbing is what you want, science is your best option. But for other cutting-related stuff, you may do better with philosophy. :up:

* - I.e. it is very highly optimised. That's what gives it its power.

That a door is a passage is an honest statement. — Shamshir

I think it's a misleading statement. A door is a door. It allows passage, or it allows access to a passage, but it is not in itself a passage. Having (effectively) zero thickness, the one thing a door is not is a passage. A passage has length; it takes you from one place (one end) to another (the other end); it traverses distance.

Open your hand - you unfold your hand - like you unfold the doorframe.
Open your ears - you clear your ears - like you clear the doorway. — Shamshir

Now you're investigating the different meanings that "open" and "clear" can carry?

Thus framed, the point is the will of the wisp.
But when chasing patter, we are mystbound and not paying attention - finding we've lost our way.

Perhaps this needless extrapolation is actually an allusion - and while the suspense kept us in place, going through the door may have been the key.

Is this adequate? — Shamshir

Now I am completely and utterly lost.

What is the point of this diversion???
What are you trying to tell/show us???

The claim made here (which is the only one I'm arguing against) is that neuroscience cannot investigate consciousness in a way that philosophy can. — Isaac

If we allow that philosopher(s) can examine themselves, their own minds and consciousness, as well, then they can achieve more than science can by the exclusive use of external, maybe impartial, observers. Who can do better depends on who is able - according to the rules of the discipline they practice - to see the most, from the greatest number of (metaphorical) vantage points. If the philosopher is permitted to make the observations the scientist can make, and also add self-observation, then the philosopher has more data to analyse. This might well give the philosopher the lead.

But this would not be down to any superiority on the part of philosophy. The rules of scientific observation don't allow self-observation by a partial observer. If that wasn't the case, there would probably be nothing to choose between the two.

What do you think? :chin:

So would you say that there's no real edge of a cliff, say? We just invent that, so if we decided to think about it differently/invent it otherwise, we could walk 15 feet further out without falling to our deaths? — Terrapin Station

I don't understand why people sometimes respond like this. If you suggest the possibility that the world our senses show us pictures of ... might not be Objective Reality. That it might not exist in the way we think it does. Then people respond by saying "stand in front of a large lorry, then".

Such responses miss the point and ridicule the point, at the same time. I can only conclude such responders are scared of the idea(s) raised, and just want to run away. :chin:

Anyone care to offer clarification?

↪Pattern-chaser
Let's say it is not a passage, a through. What then do you open when you open the door...? — Shamshir

Consider a room, with a door that connects the room to a corridor. The door marks the border between the room and the corridor. But the door is not the border, just a marker, like the "US-Canada border is here" signs.

But a door offers extra function, just to confuse us. :wink: Because the door can also allow or prevent passage between the room and the corridor. When we open the door, we allow passage between the room and the corridor, in either direction. When we close it, we prevent passage.

"What then do you open when you open the door"

Physically, I open the door, by swinging the wooden barrier that is the door on its hinges. So physically, I move a sheet of wood. Metaphorically, I open a border (between the room and the corridor).

Is there a point to the mystery we're creating here? A door is a movable barrier. What are we chasing here, @Shamshir? :chin:

Yes ... which is also the answer to @Terrapin Station's post. :smile:

:smile:

There is something that third parties cannot see happening. They can see all sorts of chemical reactions. They can't see that awareness. — Coben

Yes, there is a certain amount that a third party can see from the outside, but there is more that can only be appreciated by doing it: by being a conscious human being. And I agree it's not 'spooky'. :up:

"Are the boundaries (borders) of objects real, according to you?" — Terrapin Station

[Sorry, the actual quote came from @Janus.]

Now that's an interesting question. I know of no reason to subdivide Life, the Universe and Everything, except that it's too much for a human mind to swallow in one bite, so we split it up. This, if accurate and useful, is a good reason to classify borders as an illusion; a human invention. :chin:

Oops! Is this topic about religious belief? :yikes:

I find "belief" to be the agency required by what is referred to as "satan" to confuse people into "believing" such [...] I find "belief" therefore to be like chains that enslave people to something that is not actually real and, as it happens, the reality is actually the opposite. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Belief is not a virtue, but a necessity. There are so many things we cannot know (objectively), but feel we need to know, that we guess, and we guess our guesses are correct: we believe. Those unaware (or frightened) of our ignorance may shy away from 'belief', but in the real world it is a universal part of everyday life.

You are ultimately correct: it is absolutely neutral like breathing in reality. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Yes! :smile: And it's as necessary as breathing too! :up:

I was intrigued by this:

"Systems philosophy", which is concerned with "the new philosophy of nature" which regards the world as a great organization that is "organismic" rather than "mechanistic" in nature. — Wikipedia

[My emphasis.]

I've nothing against cybernetics, but I'm more of a tree-hugger than a roboticist. :wink: An "organismic" approach is always going to take my fancy. :smile:

Or are you guys trying to argue that neuroscience can't really study the brain at all? — Isaac

Or perhaps that neuroscience can't really study the mind at all? :chin:

No, not "at all". But I can see difficulties....

That's the 'part'. Someone watching you eat the apple, say. They would be aware of other things, like some guy eating an apple. But not the taste of the apple. So, all the stuff the third party might guess at, if they've had the same experiences, but wouldn't experience. Sure, you and they might see your hand move, but from a different angle. — Coben

Nice. :up:

Two views of consciousness:

• one which Mr Data (or any external observer) might gain from long-term and in-depth (but passive: non-participatory) observation, and
  
• one which any and every human derives from the experience of being a conscious human.

Only the second view includes what's it's like to be a conscious human.

INTJ. A designer; a chaser of patterns.

Only a tiny amount, in response to your post. It looks interesting, but too focussed on maths for my tastes. It has the appearance of something Objectivists might jump on, to promote their strange and hypothetical fantasies. There are already too many such opportunities. :wink: