The expert in philosophy, Dr. Dennis Polis, Ph.D. (Physics) 67 video curriculum is entitled Open Philosophy. He referred me to you here. The transcription demonstrated on about 20 different points how knowledge is not any type of belief.

Do you want to try a different approach?

I'm not all that brilliant, I'm just really great at learning stuff that interests me. Trying to impinge my fifteen million dollar education doesn't hurt my feelings one bit because Dr. Polis is unequalled on these subjects and I haply defer to him as you should have noticed by my repeated copy & pastes of material I copied by hand from his book, and from his 67 videos. Videos I transcribed.

He routine lectures for the International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies at their international symposiums. It's probably close to $400 for a ticket. For the last month I've been trying to raise money for my soap ministry, Alyssa Michelle Soap. I've been emailing pictures of my Dad putting the Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux. I contacted some people involved in the 113 year Easter Sunday Sunrise Service Pilgrimage here in Riverside asking about some help for my ministry. The lady said a fellow handling it would be at a prayer breakfast, I should talk to him. I said, "Great! When and where is the prayer breakfast." She gave the place and time and then said, "Sixty dollars." F*ck, am I allowed to say that here? Sixty dollars is 180 ten dollar soaps!! One whole fair's worth.

No one has paid a crying dime, not one red cent.

Not all that smart? You're probably right, but I'd rather be blessed anyway. Forty-thousand dollars an hour is a soft multiple of what my Dad made 35 years ago.

Existence is the ability to act. "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not act on me, but a Supreme Being holding me in existence is an ongoing act extraordinaire.

I'm skeptical of the claim of "atheism" and "naturalism." The skeptical sword cuts both ways.

You wrote, "without any support for it being true," but you have a side you're arguing for and a side you're arguing against. I've never met anyone in my life who forfeits an argument by claiming, "Your side has the support for its conclusions and my side doesn't, I'm switching sides."

Claiming "I'm accepting this because it has support, and you only have faith in what you're claiming and no support" is nothing but a religious tautology. Announcing what side of a dispute you're on doesn't score points with judges or juries.

I've never seen one scintilla of proof for the word "atheism." It's 100% evangelical.

I'm out the door to donate blood for the 14th time, so I only have a second.

Being held in existence is not up for debate because the alternative is not only unintelligible, it's downright insane. Think of the philosophical contrary and the square of opposition.

Give me enough time and an open mind and I will turn the person around.

Why? Because we're being held in existence, and only One entity exists as an intrinsic necessity performing that ongoing fact. If something else besides God is holding you in being and THAT Supreme Being is going to have you cease to exist then it's not much of a holder now!

It's been my experience nearly everyone comes for the entertainment, the sheer excitement of participation.

I can back this up with some lines from the movie The Insider (1999).

Jeffrey Wigand: The process is known as "impact boosting". While not spiking nicotine, they clearly manipulate it. There was extensive use of this technology known as "ammonia chemistry". It allows for the nicotine to be more rapidly absorbed in the lung and therefore affect the brain and central nervous system.

This wasn't it, can't find it right now, almost out the door to donate blood (YAY! Me!!). The part I was looking for is Wigand testifying in court in violation of his confidentiality agreement. "Tobacco is specifically designed for maximum physiological impact. The pharmacological effect crosses the blood-brain barrier intact."

Something like that. It's why I'm here, my brain and my mind enjoy it.

The Lord loves those He corrects. I learned something about that when a group of haters got together and tried to have me murdered a couple times. I was seething with anger, contemplating revenge when I got a Rhema Word from God, "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will reciprocate." God sort of told me, "Stick to your knitting, do what will make you a success, I'll take care of the rest." Life has been pretty damn good when I took the advice.

I am a teacher, I teach all kinds of stuff. At the mental clinic they call me, "Dr. Dan, Professor Dan, & Big Brother." The latter being my favorite. I teach all the time in therapy groups about the mind, those people educated in the field know next to nothing about it and are actually preaching alongside the Bible in a lot of instances, a practice frowned upon by the magisterial authority of academia bringing them there.

I also teach soap making. I'm getting better at the hobby/skill and I'm getting better at teaching it every day. So, if there is something you want to know, I'm your Huckleberry.

I'm on the side of the smart guy.

JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF?
Contemporary philosophers generally define knowledge to be justified true belief. That means that knowledge is a kind of belief to them, however we will see that this is an indefensible position. That knowledge is not a species of belief can be seen by examining their contraries. Red is a species of light, the contrary of light, darkness, involves the exclusion of red. If knowledge were a species of belief then the contrary of belief which is doubt would exclude knowledge. But it clearly is not the case.

When Descartes wrote on methodological doubt he knew that he was sitting in his room writing, yet he chose to doubt it. Since he could both know and doubt that he was in his room at the same time doubt does not exclude knowledge and knowledge is therefore a not a species of belief.

Again, let's look at the contraries of knowledge and of belief. The contrary of knowledge is ignorance, the contrary of belief is doubt. In order to doubt some proposition I have to consider the proposition but in order to be ignorant of a proposition no consideration is necessary. Therefore the contraries of knowledge and of belief don't have the same relationship to each other so knowledge is not a form of belief. A consequence of this is that Cartesian doubt calls belief into question, but it doesn't call knowledge into question because doubt is refusing to commit to a proposition even if we know it is true. So Cartesian doubt doesn't call knowledge into question it merely suspends our commitment to what we know.

Dfpolis #37 Knowledge & Belief
The difference between knowledge and belief. Knowledge is not justified true belief because it is not any kind of belief. Knowledge requires an awareness of reality, while belief is commitment with or without awareness of the reality of what is being committed to. Replacing the probability of a proposition with prioritized commitment.

As long as you're the only one on the rules committee between us, you'll always be right. Isn't that funny?

Funny how you made the argument Appeal to the Fridge.

Intentionality?

In The Intentional Stance, Daniel Dennett offers a third-person account of intentionality. He discussed the difficulties in attributing a belief to an individual by interpreting behavior and suggests:

it is quite plausible to suppose that in principle (if not yet in practice) it would be possible to confirm these simple, objective belief attributions _by finding something in the believers head_ -- by finding the beliefs themselves, in effect.... If you do believe [there is milk in the refrigerator] that's a perfectly objective fact about you, and it must come down in the end to your brain's being in some particular physical state. If we know more about the physiological psychology, we could in principle determine the facts about your brain state and determine whether or not you believe there is milk in the fridge even if you were determined to be silent or disingenuous about the topic. - Dennett (1987), p. 14.

Naturalists often wave their hands dramatically at crucial points expecting assent. In fact, Dennett's claim is quasi-fact. It is physically impossible to have detailed knowledge of brain states Dennett's supposition requires (p. 11). Even if we did, how would we identify a belief? - God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis.

Here's something you can add as point 8 thru 15 or so.

_The first facility of the noetic subsystem is awareness._ Our awareness is neither totally random, or totally determined by external stimuli. Rather, it is determined, at least in part, by our mental states. Thus, _the second facility of the noetic subsystem is the ability to direct awareness._ In large measure, we can control contents to which we attend. Implicit in our capacity to direct attention is a _value system,_ for attention values its objects. Therefore, _the third facility of the noetic subsystem is the generation of value._ Finally, in implementing our desire to pay attention we activate selected contents. This establishes the last facility to be addressed, _the ability to direct, to some extent, the neural subsystem's response, initiating chains of events incarnating our values._ This is confirmed by experiments falsifying causal closure (p. 125). Since all these facilities involve the ability to direct awareness and are responses to the contents of which we are aware, they fall appropriately within the bounds of a single subsystem. In sum, the function of the noetic subsystem is supervisory and evaluative.

God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D.

I read or skimmed your proof. You're absolutely right, we direct our awareness each moment, it's the proof of God's existence and the eternal demise of "naturalism/atheism."

Acknowledging the fact God is holding us in existence has millions of times more value than everything you've ever written or said combined!

Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of hours of real world experience it took to arrive at that? No, you don't. I'm the only one who comments here daily who knows the difference between formal and instrumental signification; the distinctions between 1st-, second-, & 3rd-person experience; the difference between the two main theories of truth; & the separation of modern analytic logic/philosophy from Intentional Aristotelian logic/philosophy.

My methods of learning are unlike everyone else's here. "What you said has no philosophical value." Come on, you got to be kidding me.

People are generally more civil here than in every other online community I've been a part of setting aside the holy ones.

For nearly 50 years I didn't understand that I was being held in existence. Your belief it in any way is trivial or not a matter of discussion here is beyond my belief. I can't believe you believe what you wrote to me.

To be clear, I'm only 1/16th Jewish, and one can convert.

You fight for us, you are one with us. I mean fight as in to argue!

A very large part of my identity as to the claim I make is immersed in my being born on December the 8th, 1962. The Feast Day of Immaculate Conception, Mary Queen of Scots birthday; Sammy Davis Jr.'s birthday, a famous convert to Judaism; Sam Kinison's birthday, a famous comedian formerly a Pentecostal minister (like me); David Carradine's birthday, Kwai Chang Caine; it falls on or near Hanukkah nearly every year, an 8 day festival, the Festival of the Lights, the Miracle of the Maccabees; & Eight Days a Week, the Beatles. The Lemniscate, infinity.

22At that time the Feast of Dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was walking in the temple courts in Solomon’s Colonnade.

The Mashiach in my understanding is the Messiah referred to in Romans 14 grafting the Jews back in.

You're one of very few people who I told, "I'm Messiah" you behaved properly even if you don't accept it. When anyone makes a claim we deem irrational, the proper response is to placate the person, not intentionally irritate them.

Best regards,
Daniel Eugene Cox 144. It's one of the things my parents did for me.

Hi, I know I'm being held in existence by a Supreme Being. You don't like the reality doing the conserving, I don't have a problem with that, but it's an undeniable fact I'm being held in existence by that "Entity."

So, there is evidence everyone is aware of.

Hi, There were some studies/experiments done in the early 20th century where some smocks took some rats, put then in some cages, and put some bottles, one of water and one of water laced with heroin. They discovered the rats preferred death by heroin over life.

Later on, a smock decided, "What if we don't put the rats in a cage, what if we made them a rat paradise? Let's see what happens." The rats chose the water which wasn't laced with heroin.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with anyone, I'm on psychotropic or psychoactive drugs too. I have to try extra hard not to be argumentative.

What if addiction isn't about your chemical hooks? What if addiction is about your cage, what if addiction is an adaptation to your environment? - Johann Hari.

I've longed maintained, "If the people in my community would take the meds they need to then I wouldn't be on them." Is that a challenge?

"Whoever takes their cash."

I'm beginning to like you more every day, more than just about everyone else I know. See, part of my claim stems from being a descendant of a thousand years of Jewish Bankers. It's a little bit of an exaggeration, but we are a few centuries ahead of the Rothchilds.

I'm slightly exaggerating because a thousand years is what I'm referring to as the millennial reign. It's not enough to be really great at making money, you have to be a consummate expert at keeping it.

O.k., Friend.

Look me up on MeWe, www.mewe.com/i/danielcox25

"done in the right context," "Who made them supreme?" Exactly.

Salutations!

We've been discussing "Supreme Being." That's what I'm claiming against all the rules. We're not allowed to evangelize here.

I can't make an argument for myself.

Thank you, that helped quite a bit.

My mentor, my physics & philosophy professor, says, "Spirituality is intentionality" and distinguishes that reality from our brain as a data processor.

I understand his point because I'm diagnosed bipolar, probably not much worse than the average person. There is the chemical imbalance in the brain as you aptly point out, something is happening in the brain when we don't get enough rest & exercise, eat crappy foods (atheist = eat shit), but that reality can't gain any traction on our noetic subsystem of mind, the sum of which is evaluative and supervisory.

My family built a castle across the freeway from The Castle miniature golf course. We did land, mobile homes & financing. Both buildings were styled after castles, we wanted our architecture to match that of the golf course castle. So, long time coming, my point is that the women in my life wanted to be princesses. They saw me as the heir apparent and would control their conduct against what they felt each moment. I only recognized it later. For instance, none of my girlfriends ever got their period, they hid it from me 100%. I never really understood what it was until one lady who wanted to get with me presented it to me not realizing the effect it would have. She campaigned more or less about how men were not understanding of the woman's period. She lost the sale.

The clinic lists these "factors" in addition to their emphatic belief mental illness comes from the brain. They're begging the question on causality and correlation.

I'm here burning time, it helps me focus, and benefits me, but it's a guilty pleasure, I should be working.

Look, I can't claim to be Messiah here. All is lost.

I'm new here and just now read the Forum Guidelines. They're mad. It's the same set of rules/guidelines & codified conduct 100% rejected by the Supreme Court. It's the same set of guidelines why I've been banned from 18 "communities."

"No evangelizing." <= WTH is that? IT's an attempt at prior restraint. Thanks for not "grokking", kind of got that part. I apologize for talking out of turn.

Hi, addiction recovery is my bread & butter.

Been through the CORE Curriculum upwards of 7 times. Sadly, all of academia for the last century plus hasn't cared about addiction or anything meaningful, it was lost in their quest for moral neutrality.

CORE is Co-Occurring Recovery Education, the CO = Mental illness & drug addiction.

Sometimes the mental clinic gets it right by accident. Most of the workers in the mental health field actually care about the people they're being paid to cure and stumble across one of very few people in this world who have the answers.

Johann Hari - TED Talks - Everything you think you know about addiction is wrong.

"What if addiction isn't about your chemical hooks? What if addiction is about your cage, what if an addiction is an adaptation to your environment?" - Hari.

It was early on in the six plus years I've been participating in therapy groups where I had a breakthrough. It was a Behavioral Health Specialist III and about my favorite worker at the clinic, a peer support specialist, who were both helping me get to the root of my addiction when I realized I started smoking pot as a gateway drug after my brother was hooked based on our dad marrying a horrific, diabolical, backstabbing bitch of an outhouse whore. It was our environment, "It's not your fault, it's not your fault, it's not your fault." - Good Will Hunting.

It's that word, "substantial." That's why my love is saying, "Get a support group." I've learned as much from other patients to be free as I have the so-called "professionals." Look at the core of the comments here, we all know that recreational marijuana use (I was King at one time) doesn't help our education.

Hi Frank,

I'm sure what you're saying makes complete sense to you just like what the Bishop is saying makes complete sense to him. Watch, I can say, "I'm an atheist" and "I'm a holy person" to the exact same effect, none. It doesn't matter how much I elaborate on either position because there is no criterion for knowing another's mental state to that degree. There's no science for it. As a matter of ongoing fact or truth, we know only one of those positions is even possibly true.

The closet I can think of in regards to "thought crime" is from the movie Minority Report where there were these "precogs" who knew what was going to happen before it happened via a psychokinetic bridge.

In my real estate finance business I spent a lot of time preparing cases & a few defenses and spent a lot of time in court. I know this is not that but the need to present legal arguments remains.

You're saying, "Say a whole bunch of stuff about your position and then put a shortcut label on it." I don't accept either. I can't know it's anyone's position or if it's their label or someone else's.

You have a nice writing style, I'm reminded by your writing that you're the guy who is over eighty years old? You might remember or know about this person, Madalyn Murray O'Hair? She claimed to be an "atheist" but she fought for her own religious rights while trying to castrate religious men for taking money. She said (in the movie I watched), "There's nowhere in the Bible where Jesus passed the plate." Well, for one, she did. She's a self-righteous, religious, hypocrite. Also, she couldn't possibly be any more biblically illiterate. Judas stole from the coffers. Luke 8 shows many women Jesus collected money from. The story of the widow and her two mites. Jesus encouraged people giving, and giving to his ministry (if you read between the lines).

A person's claim of their position is not any kind of avenue for knowing the truth. Do you really want to know the truth about me? I claim to be Messiah and have the worst addiction to porn of anyone I know. I've been making and giving away thousands of bars of soaps boasting for eight years how I don't take money, and now for this upcoming fair I've tried to collect money from about 15 different sources. Not a f*cking penny. I'm ready to quit. Everyone else is getting money. I'm either lying now or before. If we are really being honest about ourselves to others then that would be something. At least we'd be separating on good grounds.

I'm only (normally) going to tell you things about myself I believe will cause you to like me. The truth be damned. I don't lie to God haters but people I care about I shield the truth from.

In the law, every word has a very precise meaning. It's always the same in every legal context. The 'N'-word in the O.J. trial and "forfeiture by wrong doing" in the Drew Petersen case. Jodi Arias stabbed Travis Alexander 27 times and cut off his head in a premeditated jealous rage.

If someone has a special definition of words then it's impossible for me to talk to that person.

Be blessed my Friend,
Dan C

This fellow, Hindu Harry, I've been chatting with on a thread I started, "The Verificationist Fallacy" was saying the exact same thing as you. You both have a relationship with the word "naturalism" I do not.

Just for something to talk about, look at how people who deny God, people who claim to be "atheists" say, "Atheism is simple, it's the denial of the deity claim, but I'm an atheist-agnostic." If you follow a rigorous theory of truth, the correspondence theory for example, then the claimed adherent's position is 100% incoherent.

You can't be something waiting for someone else to say something to you (or me) in a predesignated way that activates the first party as the only premise doubling as their conclusion. That's a bit jumbled, but you get what I mean I hope.

For instance, for clarity, I could say to them, "I'm a Glibglabberist, I deny the atheist claim, and the atheist-agnostic claim. I'm underrepresented in prisons/jail, I'm more moral and we Glibglabberists are the intelligentsia. We score higher on IQ tests and tests regarding emotional well being." "Atheists rape children."

Naturalism is a faith statement. We're jiving 100% except on that word. I think it has something to do with so many people putting stock in "naturalist" scientists like Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking; Dennett, Sam Harris and the like. I think, kind of know, all God deniers are morons. If you look carefully at their arguments you'll see the incoherence I referenced above.

Mysticism & naturalism are diametrically opposed, they're enemies. Here's an argument I would give to the God deniers when Google + was alive:

Evidently, you are not aware of the proof technique in logic called Proof by Contradiction or, in other words, an indirect proof. This particular technique of arguing is also known as Reductio ad Absurdum, which is a valid form of deductive reasoning that dates back to the ancient Greeks.

Basically, according to this proof technique whenever there are only two alternatives, in this case supernaturalism (God, a transcendent reality) and naturalism (atheism), it is not necessary to directly prove either one of them. By proving that either one of them is false, then it follows that the other is true. Of course, in this case, in regards to supernaturalism and naturalism, this type of proof is not and cannot be a strictly deductive type, but rather an inductive.

Note that it has already been established that naturalism (atheism) is based on a logical fallacy. But, because naturalism (atheism) is based on a logical fallacy, it follows that naturalism (atheism) must be false. Therefore, supernaturalism (God, a transcendent reality) is true by Reductio ad Absurdum or, in other words, an indirect proof. Again this is not a strictly deductive type proof, but rather inductive.

The only fully consistent alternative to belief in God, properly understood, is some version of "materialism" or "physicalism"or (to use the term most widely preferred at present) "naturalism"; and naturalism--the doctrine that there is nothing apart from the physical order, and certainly nothing supernatural (a transcendent reality).

You're one of the only people I'm talking to here, and in general, one of 4. So, I really look forward to your next message.

Best regards (that's cool!),
Dan Cox

Thanks!

You're not alone, I get that quite a bit.

Hi, Certain words are required to transfer meaning, but we can use other words to convey the same meaning, so let me give it a try. You're asking me about my religion, and yes, you're right in your response, right about me claiming to be not 'a' Supreme Being, but 'the' Supreme Being. This is called Christian Mysticism, it's kind of the claim of mysticism across the board. Every religion pretty much has a mystic branch that involves mystical oneness.

We're all one with God, that's kind of the theory or belief. John chapter 17. 1 John 4:20, James 1:27, and 1 Corinthians 13.

The phrase "I can't bid against myself" means that I haven't been outbid. Apparently you haven't looked into mysticism before. How can a person outbid mysticism with naturalism? How can one try and top mysticism with "Everything is natural." There is something mystical about that claim, naturalism.

Certainly it exists as an idea. Words describe real things, and words describe fictions. Natural languages are not theories of truth. Dfpolis R-5, Dfpolis R-6, & Dfpolis R-10 Dr. Dennis Polis responds to charges thrust forward by an English dude going by the name of Wisdominnature7, a "naturalist." The 3 response YouTube videos are all about theories of truth, Truth & Language Games.

Hi,
I also saw it early on in the first HBO True Detective series, "We need to separate what we know is a fact from what we are merely speculating."

In my participation at the mental clinic I've found that they are very unclear on where mental illness comes from. They claim, "Mental illness is a brain disorder" and then remedy it with cognitive therapies pushing forward their claim of naturalism, the belief in psychoneural identity theory.

There are lots of instances where we fit stuff into a gap that is never true.

hi PC,

Please pardon the cut & paste, Dr. Dennis says it better, and I'm open for discussion.

Neuroscience and Spirituality

Let's turn to the nascent neuroscience of spirituality. To interpret this work properly, we need to note a distinction, made by John of the Cross and others, distinction between _meditation_ and _contemplation._ Meditation uses sensory contents to direct the mind toward God. Thus, one might meditate on images, stories, or experiences as a means of focusing on, and intensifying love for, God. In contemplation, sensory images, words and other contents are left behind, and love and awareness are directed toward God without sensory images. Neuroscientists studying spirituality seem unaware of this distinction. Only contemplation is relevant to introvertive mysticism. We would expect brain activity patterns to differ between meditation on an image or story, and contemplation absent such contents.

In chapter 9 of _The Spiritual Brain,_ Beauregard and O'Leary discuss studies of Carmelite nuns during spiritual exercises. One used fMRI, while another used quantitative EEGs (QEEG). In the first, the nuns "reported the presence of visual and motor imagery during both the mystical and control conditions."176 In the second, one nun reported hearing Pachelbel's Canon.177 Clearly, neither study dealt with contentless mystical experience. One goal of the studies was to test the hypothesis that a "God spot" in the temporal lobes is the locus of religious experience.178 The study falsified that hypothesis.179 Still, it did not "identify the neural correlates of mystical experience"180 if that term is understood as referring to Stace's introvertive mystical experience, or those described by St. John of the Cross.

176 Op. cit., p. 271
177 Op. cit., p. 274
178 In 1997, Ramachandran's team claimed a specific "God module" in the brain explained humans' religious propensity: "There may be dedicated neural machinery in the temporal lobes concerned with religion. This may have evolved to impose order and stability on society." (Connor (1997), "'God Spot' in found in the brain.")
179 The "God Spot" was further falsified by Kapogiannis, _et al._ (2009), "Cognitive and Neural Foundations of Religious Belief." "The findings support the view that religiosity is integrated in cognitive processes and brain networks used in social cognition, rather than being _sui generis."_ Related concepts, religious or not, are processed in the same centers. Coauthor Grafman explained, "Religion doesn't have a 'God Spot' as such, instead it's embedded in a whole range of other belief systems in the brain that we use everyday."
180 Beauregard and Paquette (2006), "Neural Correlates of a Mystical Experience in Carmelite Nuns."

God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D.

We're 100% in agreement.

One of my favorite sermons is by Joel Osteen, "The King is Looking For You." IT's the bible story of King David and Jonathan's son Mephibosheth. In that story above all others I see David as King, a leader, not a dictator. Joel really sells it.

This is my subject. 11 years clean of meth barring two exceptions where I partook of an infinitesimally small amount. I befriended a homeless veteran, and he offered it to me out of love.

For 6 years I've been in CORE Group, Co-Occurring Recovery Education. The "co" is addiction and mental illness, dual diagnosis.

Only a part of groups for 6 years, at the same clinic for 11. So, for 6 years I noticed a disconnect between how the court saw me, and how the clinic treated me. I asked my psychiatrist, "How come the court holds me 100% responsible for my willed acts, but the clinic tells me like the climatic scene of Good Will Hunting, it's not your fault, it's not your fault, it's not your fault." He said, "It's a huge controversy."

It's ever changing. Here in Riverside CA the court is bowing to the sacred robes of the mental clinic who don't have the first bit of understanding about the mind.

Looking for people to talk to I just thought about making a post contrasting modern, analytic philosophy with Aristotelian intentional logic.

I don't believe that there are many ways. One way, the right way. Just talking to you out of loneliness until I make the post. Instantly everyone who checks for the most recent activity, how I found you, will begin tagging me! YAY!!

One philosophical way.

Dfpolis: Yes, this is the problem with the hypothetico-deductive method. In science we encounter this problem all the time, multiple theories make the same prediction so it's hard to tell what an experiment is confirming since it confirms multiple theories, but I've not proposed a hypothetical argument I've proposed a deductive argument. So, the shortcomings of the hypothetico-deductive method, the scientific method, are completely irrelevant of the deductive argument that I and others have made. As for any individual religions I don't think that any individual religion that I know of proposes that it be accepted on the basis of the hypothetico-deductive method. It's completely irrelevant to the acceptance of religion to the grammar of assent. - Dfpolis R-9 Have Reason, Will Travel (a response video to theatheistpaladin).

Philosophy in my mind is different than the hypothetico-deductive method. Philosophy for me is like unconditional love, the love of 1 Corinthians 13, there's only one way to do it.

This is my second week (?) and you're right about the long stretching comments, threads. For me today philosophy is the simplest thing in the world. One way. I do enjoy the fellowship most of all and then the myriad of ways.

Hi, I'm with you 100% about YouTube. I don't believe in reading alone, I think it's the worst way to learn anything.

I like to assemble furniture, it helps me with my mind, I'm diagnosed bipolar. That's one instance where I find reading useful. But that's more about following directions, there is kinesthetic learning involved with that.

Watching and listening a YouTube video in my opinion is dramatically better than reading.

I copied out by hand a book by a philosopher: God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D. He's a contributor here, Dfpolis. I transcribed 63 of 67 of his videos too, Open Philosophy, Dfpolis on YouTube.

Philosophy seems like the easiest thing in the world to me, I missed it because no one had ever taught me how to think properly. "Is this something I'm experiencing, is it an ongoing truth, or is it something else?"

In eleven years online I've seldom come across anyone who treats me as an end in of myself. The leaders of the groups all seem to come with an agenda that does not favor people, again, that's just my opinion.

I'm not much on sticking to rules, having mods & "leaders" curating my speech. Prior restraint is roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. God that last bit from the movie, The Big Lebowski. I like stretching into eternity.

"Experience a memory"? I don't think of memories as experiences.

I don't think our rationale counts as empiricism and I don't think it relates in any way. Most everyone I know rationalizes their position.

I'm seeing a pattern here over the last 11 years. I'm reminded of something I read about how adult people when polled claim to have an above average intelligence, 96% of adults say that.

One of us has empiricism, and one of us doesn't. When I mention, "one of us is wrong across the board, and you're not considering the logical possibility it's you," I never seem to get through to the other person.

Nobody likes being informed they could even possibly be wrong about everything, but wouldn't you agree that's what it is? I've met God, I experience God every moment, I'm held in existence by God, I direct my awareness every moment. All of these ongoing facts prove "naturalism/atheism/functionalism" and so forth, wrong.

You're saying "Sensory data - empiricism" but that doesn't militate against God holding us in existence. Each of you who disagrees with me is asking me to go through your comments as if I was your personal biographer, to understand every single nuance of how you're reaching your conclusions, trying to condition my responses to meet your version of things.

I'm really trying to reach you on a meaningful level. I'm an ordained minister. It wasn't easy, I didn't get my ordination from a box of Cracker Jacks. I worked at it, I had to get approval from my instructors. Actual people decided if God said, "He's one of mine" or not. Actual ministers decided. Here, God deniers claim, "It's all bullshit." Well, that doesn't take any discipline. I can make the exact same case for "naturalism" as you are but actually provide all of the so-called scientific evidence the God deniers use.

For instance, how does one overcome 300 sigma of proof regarding the phenomenology of psychic experience? They claim, "The choices were not randomized." What kind of sensory data is that? None. It wouldn't even matter if the choices of psychic experiments were not randomized. The test takers would need to do that which brings me to the next attempt to overcome, "Fraud." No one who accuses the thousands of parapsychologists of all being frauds has any proof fraud is occurring except in the same number of cases where "natural" scientists commit fraud, "It's a proven fact we're all born atheists, it's a scientifically proven fact."

My ass always chaffs a bit when people claim something is a scientifically proven fact, or "It's an empirical proof." I never experience any of the things you're claiming.

Here's something else, Harry. I see a psychiatrist, I'm diagnosed bipolar. My mind has been constantly examined by professionals, I've been to group/s on and off for about the last six years. I know everything there is to know about how academia addresses the mind. They don't. They're worse than Dr. Chalmers.

One last thing, and please don't quote me, just answer me like we were both normal people. The last thing is that the first couple of years here online I wasn't using the same empirical practice I'm sharing with you now. One of my enemies I didn't know was my enemies was the belief promoted by Lawrenece Krauss, a flipping moron, he wrote a book, "A Universe from Nothing." I was actually arguing against my own position. I made a change, I decided before I tell you something that there would be zero chance it was wrong.

I went back to the drawing board. I started all over, "Is this actually true or is it just something I'm thinking?" I believe I've been to church 7 times in just one week. I used to be a part of a morning prayer group that met 5 times a week, and then once or twice on Sunday. Let's say 5 times a week. I had to trash all of that, "Is this real or not?" Yes, I experienced the Shekinah Glory when I went to church. I only went to churches were God moved in His Shekinah Glory. It's a real experience. Some churches were dead, they didn't really know God, they were just going through the motions. So, even though I trashed everything and started all over again, I found that there were indisputable truths such as God in the act of Love/Charity. One can give money to another person and not love them. It's not actual charity.

When I talk to God haters and say, "Look at Love/God as described in 1 Corinthians 13" they say, "Charity, I do that, I donate to Doctors without Borders." Well, you can see how big of a difference those God haters are making. They're hating me, they're telling me in essence, "You're lower than a priest who rapes children."

Hating/denying God to me is not loving me, and it's not any kind of rationale. When we love people we must love them universally or it doesn't count. Love is patient, love is kind, love does not seek its own. Naturalism doesn't do that, naturalists seek their own. They aren't loving anyone by donating to "Doctors without Borders," they're using the money the same way Judas Iscariot did.

I appreciate the conversation, but I can never be convinced of the opposite of what I experience every moment of my life.

Hi Tim, I can't you believe you believe what you're saying to me?

How do I KNOW I'm being held in existence? Because I'm being held in existence, it doesn't get any simpler than that. I'm experiencing every moment of my life, my existence, me being held in existence. There is no ontological mystery. What it entails, what it means to you, is just that. I don't hold sway how you causally engender knowledge.

Without sounding too sarcastic, stand in front of a mirror, and see what's happening.

It's not exclusively a belief I have that I'm being held in existence. I'm reminded of something, this should help clear things up 100%.

DENNETT: NO NATURALIST MODEL CAN REPRESENT THE EXPERIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. A long reasoned and careful analysis Dennett shows that no naturalist model can represent the elements present in experience. He therefore concludes we must reject experience. SO, DENNETT REJECTS EXPERIENCE FOR NATURALIST THEORY. Of course this is exactly the opposite of the scientific method. - Dfpolis #21 The Two Subsystem Mind.

God haters REJECT experience! They're all morons. I experience being held in existence. I'm not going to quibble over labels one could attach to the being responsible, that gets into religious ground I suspect you're not keen on.

Be Blessed Tim,
: D

Hi, thank you for writing.

Let's reason together. Essence: the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.
"conflict is the essence of drama"
synonyms:
quintessence · soul · spirit · ethos · nature · life · lifeblood · core · heart · center · crux · nub · nucleus · kernel · marrow · meat · pith · gist · substance · principle · central part · fundamental quality · basic quality · essential part · intrinsic nature · sum and substance · reality · actuality · quiddity · esse · nitty-gritty

Without looking up the word "tabularasa" it appears to me as if people who claim "atheism" are claiming they exist as "atheists" before they are operational. For me reality entails the essence of a thing as the specification of its acts, that existence is the ability to act. The word "atheism" and other words being used here in our discussion, have never formed representations of themselves in my brain or mind. I don't really do concepts in the 2nd- & 3rd-person perspective.

For me, people who claim they exist as something connected to concepts they adhere to is dubious at best and what I would describe as a phantasm. Let's just call people "fantasists" whose claimed commitments are at odds with reality. Reading again your first paragraph, we might again be on the same page.

I don't see the field. I'm not experiencing "atheism," not in any way it's described. I've left my body and met God in His Shekinah Glory, a couple of times. Once wasn't out of body, but then on those grounds I only attended churches where God's Shekinah Glory was in operation. I just can't get any traction into God hater arguments. I experience God haters, people hating/denying God to me, their use of the word "atheism" is incidental to their essence (God haters).

One guy kept claiming "atheism is doxastic." That's circular.

"I reject belief of any kind that doesn't have support." That's a religious tautology of your personal view of what has and has not support. I direct my awareness, the word "atheism" falsified.

Be blessed my Friend, I'm out the door, be back on tomorrow! Hope to see you then.
Daniel Eugene Cox (the Christ) 144 The Ancient of Days.

Hi, already shared with you the essence of Christian mysticism. I can't bid against myself, I can't advance a bid against a bid which has not been beaten.

Regards, Happy Easter, my High Holy Day.

I'm being held in existence. If you value yourself then show me how that's not happening for you, prove your belief is true.

It's not a matter of absolute certitude, it's a matter if someone disagrees with me has any sanity.

happy Easter, my High Holy Day as in MINE!

How are you this fine Easter morning?

I'm not an adherent to modern - analytic philosophy. So, I can't help you there.

I was referring to begging the question. A person who claims anything "atheism, theism, analytic or intentional logic/philosophy" should hold it in the first-person and refrain from holding it in the second-.

"What's gone wrong here is that the support offered for the conclusion is something nobody would accept unless they already accepted the conclusion itself. I have begged the question if I support a conclusion with reasons that would not be accepted in the context by anyone who did not already accept the conclusion. With a little reminding, this is a judgment we can often make." Larry Wright Ph.D. UCR (Riverside) Critical Thinking. Some college student left the textbook in the dumpster area. I live in Riverside!

Tim was begging the question with me about "being held in existence." If someone doesn't understand that then they need a lot more help than the smartest person in the world could manage. Being held in existence is not some special revelation of mine.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to do the quote thing, and I've been absent for 24 hours. I'm having to go up and down the page and I'm not copying and pasting your comments to me, I'm merely answering them via my facetious book, The World According to Dan Cox (Cox - Christ - Servant hehehe).

"I'm not sure how this relates to Russel's Teapot? The example I gave is an extension of his analogy, showing different points of view from theists, agnostics, and atheists, in order to exemplify a more defined overview of atheism."

Those are all unnecessary platonic ideas. The word "atheism" is incoherent. I agree with Frank on this point, "People who claim the word 'atheism' morph its meaning depending on the circumstance." Atheism is the denial of the deity claim and we're all born "atheists" and then when it's shown that babies don't deny deity claims the claimed adherent then claims, "I'm not making claims, it's a proven scientific fact that babies lack belief of gods." What the hell happened to the part about denying deity claims?

Adherents to evolutionary psychology do theorize that our minds are shaped by natural selection, not just our bodies.

Earlier in your comment you validly claimed to adhere to what you experience, only what is empirical. You sort of (in all kindness) "jumped ship" to a "new theory." By memory alone, evolution is not interested in the truth, its interest is reproduction.

Evolutionary psychology (EP) seeks to explain behavior in terms of the advantage that particular human responses conferred in the struggle for survival.55 Philosophically, it is a kind of functionalism.
55 See Gaulin and McBurney (2004), _Evolutionary Psychology_ or Tooby and Cosmides (2005)., "Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology," for a committed view and Downes (2010), "Evolutionary Psychology," for a more critical appraisal.

God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D.

Don't see you arguing for "functionalism" or naturalism, not really. You're a lot more on my side than I thought earlier. Dr. Dennis is Catholic and Dr. Hart is Christian. I stand by both. The "verificationist" fallacy seems valid to me.

"As Chalmers has pointed out there is no way in which external observations can tell us that an individual is conscious. It is only because of our own individual personal experience of being aware that we know that such a thing as consciousness exists." Dfpolis R-3-2

They seem in agreement to me.

Happy Easter,

Hi,

Do you know what psychoneural identity theory is? You can look up the definition, but it's been explained to me that brain states are identically mental states. People who hold to this theory claim that the brain and mind are not logically distinct. Not distinct in any way, not even in abstraction.

For me, what I've experienced every waking moment of my life and some when I'm sleeping, is my noetic subsystem of mind being evaluative & supervisory.

Haven't caught up on my research in regard to being knocked out, but it's happened to me at least two times. I come back into my consciousness not remembering a thing during the time I was "blacked out" because I was blacked out.

Every instance of a person arguing against the reality of life after death experience, the 12 stages as outlined by nderf.org, Jeffrey Long & his book, the arguments entail that the brain was still active, the person wasn't actually dead, and that the phenomena can be attributed to "consciousness winding down." Asphyxia.

It's your position emotion is there (in the brain), but the definition of mind is "the seat/facility of the emotions/affections & will, and is regarded to survive the death of the body.

There's a book available from the site above called "Mind Sight." There are two books with the same title, one of them is all about people born blind and deaf who first see and hear after they die.

This is my main field of study and experience. I'm a minister (servant - Cox). I prefer that to Reverend. So, I'm pleased as pie to talk to you about this until I go to heaven.

I have a hundred good arguments (proofs) against emergent materialism. One is that a mental state can be dispositional.