I don't care to get immersed in the arguments for or against IQ testing, but I offer the simple observation that there is a great deal more to a person than IQ. Knowing that I have an IQ of (say) 135, but knowing nothing else about me, tells you very little, IMO. Context is all. ... And remembering how narrow and focussed an IQ test is.

That was my two-pennyworth. I hope you enjoyed it. :wink:

All of them, I think. :chin:

Edited to add:

...and probably quite a lot of stuff I haven't even registered. — Isaac

This is probably the important bit. The bit we're not conscious/aware of. Current understanding is that unconscious processes are at least as significant as conscious ones.... So although the topic is consciousness, I don't think we should let it stray too far from its own context, and its intimate connection with our unconscious minds (not with "unconsciousness" :smile: ).

You speak British, an antiquated English, the form spoken prior to the American corrections and perfection. — Hanover

<rant>
Oh my, a heretic! :scream: English is the language spoken by the English people, who live in England. The lingua franca of the Western World is called "American"*. It is the language of barbarians.
</rant>

Thank you for your attention.

* - Or "American English", if you wish also to refer to the historic source of the American language.

↪Terrapin Station

the lounge is hidden from view because it makes the philosophers of the site look bad if it comes up on the front page. — Metaphysician Undercover

So is there a way to show all current threads? And which threads are missing when you click on "Forum"? Is it only the lounge?

It seems to me that a door marks a border, to cross-fertilise two current threads.

Door:
- a movable, usually solid, barrier for opening and closing an entranceway, cupboard, cabinet, or the like, commonly turning on hinges or sliding in grooves.
- any means of approach, admittance, or access.
- any gateway marking an entrance or exit from one place or state to another — dictionary.com

A door is not a passage, but one end of a passage. A door, like a point in maths, is considered to have zero thickness. [ Not literally zero, of course, but we normally assume its thickness is insignificant. ] It marks and protects an entrance or exit to/from somewhere else. Is this really all so complicated?

I can't make any sense at all of understanding how it feels. — Isaac

You are human, as most of us are. You are mostly conscious, as most of us are. Having experienced consciousness for yourself, you have an understanding of what it is like (i.e. how it feels).

But very often people misunderstand that contingency of free speech to believe that there is absolute freedom of expression and that their individual expression is absolved from punishment. — Anaxagoras

This is my understanding of how things are in the USA, but I'm not from there, and so I may have misunderstood. Am I right or wrong? :chin:

So I reckon that rhetorical questions are an invalid language construct, because it's effectiveness relies upon the breaking of a fundamental code of language: that questions are a request for a response. — Serving Zion

Autists like me spend their lives amazed at the communications complications that NTs (NeuroTypicals) indulge in. Questions that aren't questions, as you observe. Then there's the lying. NT communication is often stuffed with lies and deception. Even "How are you?" isn't what it seems. It's some sort of formulaic thing that seems to mean simply "hello". If I say how I am when you ask me, I become the weirdo you don't talk to in the future.

Someone might ask "where have you been?", and mean "I've been waiting for you for hours; account for why you've kept me waiting!" But we're the weird ones; we're disabled. :chin: Yeah, I can see how that makes sense. [Yes, I just wrote the opposite of what I meant. Helpful, eh? :wink: ]

And all that's without mentioning implied meanings, stuff you can apparently understand if you 'read between the lines'. Never say what you mean seems to be the motto, perhaps in case anyone challenges what you say, and you leave yourself a line of retreat if they do? :chin:

Could similar electromagnetic waves produced from our consciousness, be a spiritual medium that travels too... — 3017amen

Many things are possible.... :smile:

The first is, the second isn't - and that's something we (most of us) recognise by rational intuition. — Bartricks

I'm not sure, but don't we have to learn such things? I wonder if intuition (rational or otherwise) alone is enough to result in that realisation? Is logic intuitive? :chin:

But that would assume we could aquire the ability to hear those frequencies. — 3017amen

If the ability to hear an expanded range of frequencies conferred a survival advantage, I imagine we could evolve to hear more than we do now. But that would be an expansion of our existing sense. To add the ability to 'hear' radio frequencies, for example, might be more of a challenge. :wink:

I was trying to make a stronger statement. I do not believe that absolute or objective truth exists. That's not quite right, because the existence of absolute truth is a metaphysical question. Metaphysical questions don't have true or false answers. It is a matter of usefulness. I don't think the idea of absolute truth is useful and I think it is misleading. — T Clark

:up:

I don't want to go off topic, which I think we're starting to do. There are lots of threads on the forum that discuss this issue. I've started some. It's an issue that is near and dear to me. I don't think there are any active right now. Actually, there is one "Metaphysics - What is It," that @Pattern-chaser started and which closed out last week. Maybe PC wouldn't mind us reopening it to discuss this issue. — T Clark

By all means! :smile:

Which of those definitions did you mean when you said "will it give us any understanding at all of what it's like to be a conscious human being?" — Isaac

What exactly did you mean by it?

know what it is (like) to
to be familiar with how it feels to be or do something — Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus


Full dictionary entry here. — Pattern-chaser — Isaac

In this case, "to be familiar with how it feels to be" "a conscious human being", as I said.

I think there is a lot of value in a sort of "blue collar philosophy," where the object is clearly communicating ideas in ways which are in line with the common patterns of communication. The objective being transferring information to another person, who very well could be a lay person or a non-specialist, as opposed to posturing as a deeply intellectual savant.

I would be curious to hear anyone else's opinion. One final thing I would add here, is the quote from Einstein,

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." — rlclauer

I can't disagree, but we don't always understand our subject matter. Perhaps because we're still learning about it? Nevertheless, I think we all accept (?) communication is optimised if we are able to employ simplicity and clarity. In English, there's always E-Prime to consider too. All it really does is to express your thought(s), clearly, without implication, inference or magnification.

Like has many uses, listed in many dictionaries. Look here, and see how many different uses the Cambridge English dictionary lists. — Pattern-chaser


Well, that's a great start. Which of those definitions did you mean when you said "will it give us any understanding at all of what it's like to be a conscious human being?" — Isaac

I think I meant the one that any accomplished English speaker would understand from my words, unless we alerted them to look for hidden alternative intended meanings.

There are borders that exist only because we recognise them. But surely there are also borders that exist because they lie between different things, like the sea-shore, which bounds the sea (or the land, depending which way you're oriented)?

What would you say is the physical border there? — Terrapin Station

Well, you see that piece of grass, immediately to the right of the sign...? :wink:

...and if there are no "analogous cases"? That was what I was trying to get at. :chin:

So does this restrict the kinds of propositions about God that one can put forth? — uncanni

Not as far as I'm concerned, but if we go too far out from the 'mainstream', if there is one, that won't take us in the direction of a general description of God that we could agree on. Aside from that, go for it! :up:

I am only interested in what reason says, not what some crazy book written by people who know less than we do says. — Bartricks

And when reason says nothing...? Just interested to see what you make of such things. :chin:

The whole thing just seems designed to make fun of atheists who are interested in the concept of god. How dare they. You certainly got me :smile: — ZhouBoTong

No, it wasn't/isn't. I'm sorry if it seems that way to you. :yikes:

Hmmm, based on the thread title, I thought "consensus" was the whole point of this thread. After Pattern-chaser's responses, I had to re-read and I am now aware I read the whole thing wrong (not sure why he went with that title), but anyway... — ZhouBoTong

I thought consensus, or something close, was the idea too. I called it what I called it because that's what I was looking for, if it was/is there to be found?

Thanks to everyone for their contributions here. There are many comments worth responding to, some that I agree with, and some not. But there are just too many to reply to every one. So thanks all, for your contributions. They haven't been ignored. To have such a wealth of useful replies is great! [...even if we may never achieve the aim I have set...]

That 'nature' or description can be inferred from the Christian God. Meaning, Jesus had a human conscious. Our consciousness is not logical (finite). — 3017amen

This bothers me a bit. To the extent that Jesus was God, he was not human. To the extent that he was human, he wasn't God. It's a bit of a puzzler (to me). I tend to think of Jesus as a human possessed by God. I'm sure many will disagree. :wink: I don't think much (anything?) about God can be inferred or deduced from what it is to be human. After all, if we were anything like God, we might understand Her - and what She is - much better than we do, no? :chin:

So the question for Atheists is how do they know the truth that the Christian God did not exist? — 3017amen

Yes; that question is aimed at the deniers though. :up: :smile: But maybe not here in this topic? :wink: This topic aims, if possible, to seek a common description of God, for us all to use in our discussions. Those discussions regularly (try to) consider how deniers come to their Truth....

Alas no! Atheists like me DO NOT 'love to talk 'God' which they consider to be a useless concept for them. — fresco

Ah, a proper atheist. :smile: I apologise to you and your brothers and sisters. When I referred to "atheists", I referred to the majority of people who take that label for themselves, but they are really just God-deniers. True atheists, as you say, are indifferent to the concept (and actuality? :wink: ) of God. The deniers seek only to express their contempt for belief and believers, not realising that their active assertion of the non-existence of God places them alongside theists in a faith position.

This topic is intended, if possible (and I suspect it isn't possible), to offer a description of God for these deniers to address. One that doesn't include some of the sillier parts of historical descriptions of God, like the omni-nonsense. She may or may not be omnivorous, but what does that tell us humans? Not a lot; nothing of note.

"All knowing" and "All powerful" (with both power and knowledge being unconstrained by the laws of physics) seem to be the minimum requirements...right? — ZhouBoTong

It is generally agreed that 'God' with a capital 'G' denotes a being who has at least the following attributes essentially: perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and the creator of everything. [...] surely that those attributes are essential is not seriously in dispute? — Bartricks

That doesn't work for me. Beliefs vary widely, of course, and the details of my personal beliefs aren't important here, but the God I venerate is not a creator-God, for a start; and I don't care to speculate on what omni-s She may or may not exhibit, when I know so little of Her nature (etc). Perhaps belief just spreads too far to accommodate in one description? :chin:

A portal is a passage, isn't it?
If you're not familiar, the port in portal stands for gate. — Shamshir

I think it refers to an entrance or place of entry. Entry to somewhere; in your example, a passage/corridor. A door leads onto whatever lies behind it, doesn't it?

And @Pattern-chaser, let me know if us atheist-types are supposed to butt-out of this one... — ZhouBoTong

Not at all, but I think the privilege of describing God should be offered first to theists. That makes sense, doesn't it? :chin:

Then it would follow, as I've thought it through, that a door or gate or anything of the sort - is a passage. — Shamshir

Not a "portal", or something similar?

Like I said any of these Gods could exist and could have existed without respect to their given religion, but it is impossible to make that argument unless humans were aware of the presence of any of the Gods before their religion came about, which in itself cannot be proven. — Maureen

I don't think anything to do with God or religion can be proven, can it? :chin:

it's not about you - dummkopf — Amity

How kind, I think. :chin: :smile: :blush:

I haven't noticed any particularly unpleasant exchanges recently, but I suppose it depends which topics we follow. For all I know, the OP is complaining about me. :yikes: I hope not, but one man's supporter is another woman's troll, as we might put it. Courtesy is the only way to run any forum, assuming we wish to avoid the typical online unpleasantness.

Chasing and harassing - ask yourself if it's worthy or worth it. — Amity

:up: :smile:

Both atheists and theists should be embarrassed by that discussion around omni- qualities. — Coben

:up: :smile: They embarrass me, anyway.

If the news shows a swastika or racial vandalism, for example, I don’t think a bunch of neo-Nazis are going to rise from the ground and start attacking people. — NOS4A2

Not from the showing of a single swastika, no. But regular, supportive, coverage of (say) racist stuff does cause a surge in support for organisations like the KKK, who are more prominent today since Trump came to power, and gave them his support.

So what do we do about it...drum roll....nothing. Or at least nothing much. This is a well moderated forum. The moderators usually get crap when they delete posts or ban people. I think they walk a good line between rigid control and chaos. — T Clark

:up: Our mods seem to do a good job. Thanks to them! :up:

I see from here that you also have 'The Egyptian Book of the Dead on you bookshelf. — PoeticUniverse

The Egyptian Book of the Dead is a guide to dying well, nothing more. :roll:

The phenomenon of reliably consistent creation by causal intelligence lying behind it is philosophically and logically impossible without more causal intelligence lying behind it, etc. — PoeticUniverse

<Assertion alert>

Do you have evidence? Or supporting ideas, even? :chin:

The latter. :wink:

A door is a passage. — Shamshir

I don't want to get nit-picky, but doesn't a door open onto a passage? Isn't it an entry to that passage? :chin:

Everyone thinks that God knows everything, can do anything, and is everywhere — PoeticUniverse

No, they don't.

Glad you could make it to Bible Study Class today. — PoeticUniverse

The Bible might be your holy book, but it isn't mine. :up: :smile: