Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[BigMike]

You accuse me of being adamant, dismissive, and resistant to influence

Accuse is not the right word, and this is not my intention. My objective is to see you and the ideology that you construct within a context — that of intellectual evolution or perhaps devolution. The qualities or the characteristics I notice in you are the qualities that seem to define the age we are in. When I comment about you I am actually speaking to that. Your adamancy arises from within these absolutisms that you are so involved with. You have no other choice, really, but to *dismiss* any notion that does not conform to the ideology you develop. And to influence you to consider other models is impossible, because of your adamancy, your dismissiveness, etc. You seem to me to operate in a closed loop.

rhetorical gymnastics and vague metaphysical speculation

Those are your labels, naturally. And their purpose is dismissiveness. What other choice do you have but to assign them? Unlike you, I do not dismiss metaphysics because what is metaphysical, to everything that is grasped by a “brute” perception, unquestionably exists. I know, I keep repeating this and you will keep rejecting the import of it, but this can’t be helped.

I presented one alternative to the views you have and the purpose of my reference was to demonstrate how different orderings of perception can and will allow for different results. The reason I do this is because I notice that the system that you are developing is destructive to *realms of knowledge* that you, necessarily, must dismiss. It is entirely plausible, if the eye and the ear are compared to *the brain*, that the brain develops to receive consciousness. And consciousness that is latent in this weird Cosmos. Again, I was sort of riffing of of the Carlyle quote. And yes, I get that everything that does not accord with your established views is *fluff*.

You suggest the brain might be a "reception device" for consciousness, akin to an ear hearing sound or an eye seeing light. This is nothing more than unsubstantiated metaphysical hand-waving

Actually I could respond by noting that the idea is compatible, in one example, with some Eastern ideas from yoga-philosophy that man is a perceiving instrument and that he can, and perhaps must, increase his capability to *receive* what is there to receive. Obviously this fits with some of my own notions about receiving impulses from what is *divine* and “angelic” and I regret a little that these ideas seem utterly retrograde to responsible modernists. But please remember that I agreed, largely, with your initial assertion that man finds himself in a terribly conditioned situation with just *a cubic centimeter of chance* to alter the current of causation and conditioning that has him in its grip. Another way to understand the connotation in the symbol of the Fall. And yes, again, I recognize that these present references can only make you gag!

“This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.”

Obviously, the *eye* is not the physical eye but more the mind and more our consciousness. And if our *mind* is really what we need to hone, or nourish, or purify (?) then one’s relationship to one’s self really does become different (than what I understand of your anthropological-ideological project).

you retreat into abstractions about "psychological configurations" and "habitual assumptions”

That is one way to negatively describe it. There are other, more favorable, alternatives.

You want me to "modify my posture"? Here’s a recommendation for you: stop pontificating about how others are closed-minded and start addressing the actual arguments

I have definitely been involved in thinking about and addressing what I think are the ramifications of your ideas, what the consequences of your ideas seem to me to be, could be, might be. Your advent here to this forum is very fortunate in my opinion. But obviously (in my case) not for the reasons you’d suppose nor are you achieving (with me) what you seem to desire.

This is exasperating. It is entirely pointless to try to have a meaningful discussion with someone who repeatedly dodges addressing a fundamental issue, despite multiple requests. You parade around the outskirts of the conversation, riffing on metaphysical poetry, invoking yoga philosophy, and referencing Carlyle, but you stubbornly refuse to engage directly with the key question: How does your view of the brain and consciousness—this idea of a “reception device”—actually work, in practical terms?

Do you acknowledge that memories, learning, and adaptations are stored and processed as physical changes in the brain, or don’t you? If not, explain why. If you do, explain how this aligns or conflicts with the deterministic framework I’ve presented. But no, instead of offering clarity, you retreat into abstractions, throwing in quotes and symbolic musings that do nothing to address the substance of what’s being debated.

You claim I’m closed-minded, adamant, and dismissive—fine, let’s assume for argument’s sake that I am. But what exactly is your excuse for refusing to articulate your position on such a key point? You suggest the brain might “receive” consciousness, yet you offer no evidence, no mechanism, no clear explanation. It’s hand-waving, plain and simple, dressed up in ornate language to disguise its emptiness. You can’t keep tossing out vague metaphysical notions as if they’re some kind of intellectual trump card and expect to be taken seriously.

I’m not asking for poetic musings or symbolic interpretations—I’m asking for specificity. If the brain is a “reception device,” then explain how this works. What is it receiving? From where? By what mechanism? And most importantly, how does this align with or refute the deterministic processes of learning and memory? These are basic, foundational questions, and your refusal to address them directly makes it impossible to take your position seriously.

You accuse me of operating in a “closed loop,” yet here you are, sidestepping the central issues at every turn. You claim to be addressing the ramifications of my ideas, but what you’re really doing is pontificating without offering any substantive critique. If you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Stop hiding behind rhetorical flourishes and metaphysical smoke screens.

Until you’re willing to engage with the actual arguments—without deflecting into abstractions or rehashing the same tired accusations—there’s no point in continuing this. It’s not a conversation; it’s a performance. And frankly, I have better uses for my time.

[Dubious]

How does your view of the brain and consciousness—this idea of a “reception device”—actually work, in practical terms?

I'll put in my two cents worth because it's an interesting question...

The brain is a processing device dependent on external input as well as forging its own in the sense of arriving at resolutions, right or wrong to its own questions, evolution being the physical process and the means by which it became structured into consciousness. In that sense, the brain is a receiving device only through its input channels processing the incoming data to the allowable extent its consciousness as circumscribed by its physicality warrants.

There is nothing inherently metaphysical about the brain...mysterious still, but not metaphysical though quite able without limit to ponder metaphysically, meaning philosophically or theistically into scenarios of complete absurdity or conversely, into thought structures and art enterprises which can only be denoted as supremely magisterial.

Metaphyics is the art of reaching escape velocity beyond what's mandated by its physical underpinnings. That's normal for a brain that strives to know - especially in how it regards itself - beyond its ability to know. That too is a reality inherent in determinism being the root cause which provoked it. In terms of human consciousness, metaphysics is an integral part of the deterministic universe you describe. If not, why is it so powerful within the human psyche; why would it even be allowed to exist if not deterministically caused?

In short, the brain is a chameleon co-equal in discovering the factual while simultaneously being the inventor of its own fairy tales.

[Atla]

You accuse me of being adamant, dismissive, and resistant to influence

Accuse is not the right word, and this is not my intention. My objective is to see you and the ideology that you construct within a context — that of intellectual evolution or perhaps devolution. The qualities or the characteristics I notice in you are the qualities that seem to define the age we are in. When I comment about you I am actually speaking to that. Your adamancy arises from within these absolutisms that you are so involved with. You have no other choice, really, but to *dismiss* any notion that does not conform to the ideology you develop. And to influence you to consider other models is impossible, because of your adamancy, your dismissiveness, etc. You seem to me to operate in a closed loop.

rhetorical gymnastics and vague metaphysical speculation

Those are your labels, naturally. And their purpose is dismissiveness. What other choice do you have but to assign them? Unlike you, I do not dismiss metaphysics because what is metaphysical, to everything that is grasped by a “brute” perception, unquestionably exists. I know, I keep repeating this and you will keep rejecting the import of it, but this can’t be helped.

I presented one alternative to the views you have and the purpose of my reference was to demonstrate how different orderings of perception can and will allow for different results. The reason I do this is because I notice that the system that you are developing is destructive to *realms of knowledge* that you, necessarily, must dismiss. It is entirely plausible, if the eye and the ear are compared to *the brain*, that the brain develops to receive consciousness. And consciousness that is latent in this weird Cosmos. Again, I was sort of riffing of of the Carlyle quote. And yes, I get that everything that does not accord with your established views is *fluff*.

You suggest the brain might be a "reception device" for consciousness, akin to an ear hearing sound or an eye seeing light. This is nothing more than unsubstantiated metaphysical hand-waving

Actually I could respond by noting that the idea is compatible, in one example, with some Eastern ideas from yoga-philosophy that man is a perceiving instrument and that he can, and perhaps must, increase his capability to *receive* what is there to receive. Obviously this fits with some of my own notions about receiving impulses from what is *divine* and “angelic” and I regret a little that these ideas seem utterly retrograde to responsible modernists. But please remember that I agreed, largely, with your initial assertion that man finds himself in a terribly conditioned situation with just *a cubic centimeter of chance* to alter the current of causation and conditioning that has him in its grip. Another way to understand the connotation in the symbol of the Fall. And yes, again, I recognize that these present references can only make you gag!

“This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye.”

Obviously, the *eye* is not the physical eye but more the mind and more our consciousness. And if our *mind* is really what we need to hone, or nourish, or purify (?) then one’s relationship to one’s self really does become different (than what I understand of your anthropological-ideological project).

you retreat into abstractions about "psychological configurations" and "habitual assumptions”

That is one way to negatively describe it. There are other, more favorable, alternatives.

You want me to "modify my posture"? Here’s a recommendation for you: stop pontificating about how others are closed-minded and start addressing the actual arguments

I have definitely been involved in thinking about and addressing what I think are the ramifications of your ideas, what the consequences of your ideas seem to me to be, could be, might be. Your advent here to this forum is very fortunate in my opinion. But obviously (in my case) not for the reasons you’d suppose nor are you achieving (with me) what you seem to desire.

This is exasperating. It is entirely pointless to try to have a meaningful discussion with someone who repeatedly dodges addressing a fundamental issue, despite multiple requests. You parade around the outskirts of the conversation, riffing on metaphysical poetry, invoking yoga philosophy, and referencing Carlyle, but you stubbornly refuse to engage directly with the key question: How does your view of the brain and consciousness—this idea of a “reception device”—actually work, in practical terms?

Do you acknowledge that memories, learning, and adaptations are stored and processed as physical changes in the brain, or don’t you? If not, explain why. If you do, explain how this aligns or conflicts with the deterministic framework I’ve presented. But no, instead of offering clarity, you retreat into abstractions, throwing in quotes and symbolic musings that do nothing to address the substance of what’s being debated.

You claim I’m closed-minded, adamant, and dismissive—fine, let’s assume for argument’s sake that I am. But what exactly is your excuse for refusing to articulate your position on such a key point? You suggest the brain might “receive” consciousness, yet you offer no evidence, no mechanism, no clear explanation. It’s hand-waving, plain and simple, dressed up in ornate language to disguise its emptiness. You can’t keep tossing out vague metaphysical notions as if they’re some kind of intellectual trump card and expect to be taken seriously.

I’m not asking for poetic musings or symbolic interpretations—I’m asking for specificity. If the brain is a “reception device,” then explain how this works. What is it receiving? From where? By what mechanism? And most importantly, how does this align with or refute the deterministic processes of learning and memory? These are basic, foundational questions, and your refusal to address them directly makes it impossible to take your position seriously.

You accuse me of operating in a “closed loop,” yet here you are, sidestepping the central issues at every turn. You claim to be addressing the ramifications of my ideas, but what you’re really doing is pontificating without offering any substantive critique. If you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Stop hiding behind rhetorical flourishes and metaphysical smoke screens.

Until you’re willing to engage with the actual arguments—without deflecting into abstractions or rehashing the same tired accusations—there’s no point in continuing this. It’s not a conversation; it’s a performance. And frankly, I have better uses for my time.

And that's why we don't "debate" the religious. They don't see a difference between what is true and what they want to be true.

[BigMike]

How does your view of the brain and consciousness—this idea of a “reception device”—actually work, in practical terms?

I'll put in my two cents worth because it's an interesting question...

The brain is a processing device dependent on external input as well as forging its own in the sense of arriving at resolutions, right or wrong to its own questions, evolution being the physical process and the means by which it became structured into consciousness. In that sense, the brain is a receiving device only through its input channels processing the incoming data to the allowable extent its consciousness as circumscribed by its physicality warrants.

There is nothing inherently metaphysical about the brain...mysterious still, but not metaphysical though quite able without limit to ponder metaphysically, meaning philosophically or theistically into scenarios of complete absurdity or conversely, into thought structures and art enterprises which can only be denoted as supremely magisterial.

Metaphyics is the art of reaching escape velocity beyond what's mandated by its physical underpinnings. That's normal for a brain that strives to know - especially in how it regards itself - beyond its ability to know. That too is a reality inherent in determinism being the root cause which provoked it. In terms of human consciousness, metaphysics is an integral part of the deterministic universe you describe. If not, why is it so powerful within the human psyche; why would it even be allowed to exist if not deterministically caused?

In short, the brain is a chameleon co-equal in discovering the factual while simultaneously being the inventor of its own fairy tales.

Dubious,

Your response is thoughtful, and I appreciate that you ground even metaphysical pondering within the framework of deterministic causation. The brain's ability to process inputs, generate resolutions, and stretch itself into realms of philosophical or theistic speculation—all while being fundamentally rooted in its physical structure—is a fascinating testament to the complexity of deterministic processes.

You’re absolutely right that metaphysical thought, as absurd or profound as it may seem, is itself a deterministic output of the brain’s workings. It doesn’t escape causality; it exemplifies it. The very fact that we can ponder beyond our understanding is, ironically, one of the most remarkable deterministic outcomes of the evolutionary processes that shaped us.

In this light, metaphysics isn’t a contradiction to determinism—it’s one of its more intriguing manifestations. Thank you for phrasing it so succinctly.

[BigMike]

Accuse is not the right word, and this is not my intention. My objective is to see you and the ideology that you construct within a context — that of intellectual evolution or perhaps devolution. The qualities or the characteristics I notice in you are the qualities that seem to define the age we are in. When I comment about you I am actually speaking to that. Your adamancy arises from within these absolutisms that you are so involved with. You have no other choice, really, but to *dismiss* any notion that does not conform to the ideology you develop. And to influence you to consider other models is impossible, because of your adamancy, your dismissiveness, etc. You seem to me to operate in a closed loop.


Those are your labels, naturally. And their purpose is dismissiveness. What other choice do you have but to assign them? Unlike you, I do not dismiss metaphysics because what is metaphysical, to everything that is grasped by a “brute” perception, unquestionably exists. I know, I keep repeating this and you will keep rejecting the import of it, but this can’t be helped.

I presented one alternative to the views you have and the purpose of my reference was to demonstrate how different orderings of perception can and will allow for different results. The reason I do this is because I notice that the system that you are developing is destructive to *realms of knowledge* that you, necessarily, must dismiss. It is entirely plausible, if the eye and the ear are compared to *the brain*, that the brain develops to receive consciousness. And consciousness that is latent in this weird Cosmos. Again, I was sort of riffing of of the Carlyle quote. And yes, I get that everything that does not accord with your established views is *fluff*.


Actually I could respond by noting that the idea is compatible, in one example, with some Eastern ideas from yoga-philosophy that man is a perceiving instrument and that he can, and perhaps must, increase his capability to *receive* what is there to receive. Obviously this fits with some of my own notions about receiving impulses from what is *divine* and “angelic” and I regret a little that these ideas seem utterly retrograde to responsible modernists. But please remember that I agreed, largely, with your initial assertion that man finds himself in a terribly conditioned situation with just *a cubic centimeter of chance* to alter the current of causation and conditioning that has him in its grip. Another way to understand the connotation in the symbol of the Fall. And yes, again, I recognize that these present references can only make you gag!



Obviously, the *eye* is not the physical eye but more the mind and more our consciousness. And if our *mind* is really what we need to hone, or nourish, or purify (?) then one’s relationship to one’s self really does become different (than what I understand of your anthropological-ideological project).


That is one way to negatively describe it. There are other, more favorable, alternatives.


I have definitely been involved in thinking about and addressing what I think are the ramifications of your ideas, what the consequences of your ideas seem to me to be, could be, might be. Your advent here to this forum is very fortunate in my opinion. But obviously (in my case) not for the reasons you’d suppose nor are you achieving (with me) what you seem to desire.

This is exasperating. It is entirely pointless to try to have a meaningful discussion with someone who repeatedly dodges addressing a fundamental issue, despite multiple requests. You parade around the outskirts of the conversation, riffing on metaphysical poetry, invoking yoga philosophy, and referencing Carlyle, but you stubbornly refuse to engage directly with the key question: How does your view of the brain and consciousness—this idea of a “reception device”—actually work, in practical terms?

Do you acknowledge that memories, learning, and adaptations are stored and processed as physical changes in the brain, or don’t you? If not, explain why. If you do, explain how this aligns or conflicts with the deterministic framework I’ve presented. But no, instead of offering clarity, you retreat into abstractions, throwing in quotes and symbolic musings that do nothing to address the substance of what’s being debated.

You claim I’m closed-minded, adamant, and dismissive—fine, let’s assume for argument’s sake that I am. But what exactly is your excuse for refusing to articulate your position on such a key point? You suggest the brain might “receive” consciousness, yet you offer no evidence, no mechanism, no clear explanation. It’s hand-waving, plain and simple, dressed up in ornate language to disguise its emptiness. You can’t keep tossing out vague metaphysical notions as if they’re some kind of intellectual trump card and expect to be taken seriously.

I’m not asking for poetic musings or symbolic interpretations—I’m asking for specificity. If the brain is a “reception device,” then explain how this works. What is it receiving? From where? By what mechanism? And most importantly, how does this align with or refute the deterministic processes of learning and memory? These are basic, foundational questions, and your refusal to address them directly makes it impossible to take your position seriously.

You accuse me of operating in a “closed loop,” yet here you are, sidestepping the central issues at every turn. You claim to be addressing the ramifications of my ideas, but what you’re really doing is pontificating without offering any substantive critique. If you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Stop hiding behind rhetorical flourishes and metaphysical smoke screens.

Until you’re willing to engage with the actual arguments—without deflecting into abstractions or rehashing the same tired accusations—there’s no point in continuing this. It’s not a conversation; it’s a performance. And frankly, I have better uses for my time.

And that's why we don't "debate" the religious. They don't see a difference between what is true and what they want to be true.

Atla,

Exactly. This is the crux of the issue. It’s not a debate when one side refuses to engage with what is demonstrably true—what can be observed, measured, and understood—and instead clings to what they want to believe. When every attempt to pin down specifics is met with abstractions, metaphysical musings, or poetic deflections, it becomes clear that truth isn’t the goal. Preservation of a comforting narrative is.

The frustration lies in the fact that these conversations masquerade as intellectual engagement when, in reality, they are performances of belief. There’s no willingness to acknowledge the physical, deterministic foundations of things like learning and memory—things that we know, empirically, to be true. Instead, we’re dragged into rhetorical quicksand, debating ideas rooted not in evidence but in a refusal to let go of cherished assumptions.

And this is why it becomes impossible to make progress. It’s not a lack of understanding on their part; it’s a refusal to see the difference between what is and what they wish it to be. At some point, continuing the conversation only feeds the performance, not the pursuit of truth.

[Age]

Accuse is not the right word, and this is not my intention. My objective is to see you and the ideology that you construct within a context — that of intellectual evolution or perhaps devolution. The qualities or the characteristics I notice in you are the qualities that seem to define the age we are in. When I comment about you I am actually speaking to that. Your adamancy arises from within these absolutisms that you are so involved with. You have no other choice, really, but to *dismiss* any notion that does not conform to the ideology you develop. And to influence you to consider other models is impossible, because of your adamancy, your dismissiveness, etc. You seem to me to operate in a closed loop.


Those are your labels, naturally. And their purpose is dismissiveness. What other choice do you have but to assign them? Unlike you, I do not dismiss metaphysics because what is metaphysical, to everything that is grasped by a “brute” perception, unquestionably exists. I know, I keep repeating this and you will keep rejecting the import of it, but this can’t be helped.

I presented one alternative to the views you have and the purpose of my reference was to demonstrate how different orderings of perception can and will allow for different results. The reason I do this is because I notice that the system that you are developing is destructive to *realms of knowledge* that you, necessarily, must dismiss. It is entirely plausible, if the eye and the ear are compared to *the brain*, that the brain develops to receive consciousness. And consciousness that is latent in this weird Cosmos. Again, I was sort of riffing of of the Carlyle quote. And yes, I get that everything that does not accord with your established views is *fluff*.


Actually I could respond by noting that the idea is compatible, in one example, with some Eastern ideas from yoga-philosophy that man is a perceiving instrument and that he can, and perhaps must, increase his capability to *receive* what is there to receive. Obviously this fits with some of my own notions about receiving impulses from what is *divine* and “angelic” and I regret a little that these ideas seem utterly retrograde to responsible modernists. But please remember that I agreed, largely, with your initial assertion that man finds himself in a terribly conditioned situation with just *a cubic centimeter of chance* to alter the current of causation and conditioning that has him in its grip. Another way to understand the connotation in the symbol of the Fall. And yes, again, I recognize that these present references can only make you gag!



Obviously, the *eye* is not the physical eye but more the mind and more our consciousness. And if our *mind* is really what we need to hone, or nourish, or purify (?) then one’s relationship to one’s self really does become different (than what I understand of your anthropological-ideological project).


That is one way to negatively describe it. There are other, more favorable, alternatives.


I have definitely been involved in thinking about and addressing what I think are the ramifications of your ideas, what the consequences of your ideas seem to me to be, could be, might be. Your advent here to this forum is very fortunate in my opinion. But obviously (in my case) not for the reasons you’d suppose nor are you achieving (with me) what you seem to desire.

This is exasperating. It is entirely pointless to try to have a meaningful discussion with someone who repeatedly dodges addressing a fundamental issue, despite multiple requests. You parade around the outskirts of the conversation, riffing on metaphysical poetry, invoking yoga philosophy, and referencing Carlyle, but you stubbornly refuse to engage directly with the key question: How does your view of the brain and consciousness—this idea of a “reception device”—actually work, in practical terms?

Do you acknowledge that memories, learning, and adaptations are stored and processed as physical changes in the brain, or don’t you? If not, explain why. If you do, explain how this aligns or conflicts with the deterministic framework I’ve presented. But no, instead of offering clarity, you retreat into abstractions, throwing in quotes and symbolic musings that do nothing to address the substance of what’s being debated.

You claim I’m closed-minded, adamant, and dismissive—fine, let’s assume for argument’s sake that I am. But what exactly is your excuse for refusing to articulate your position on such a key point? You suggest the brain might “receive” consciousness, yet you offer no evidence, no mechanism, no clear explanation. It’s hand-waving, plain and simple, dressed up in ornate language to disguise its emptiness. You can’t keep tossing out vague metaphysical notions as if they’re some kind of intellectual trump card and expect to be taken seriously.

I’m not asking for poetic musings or symbolic interpretations—I’m asking for specificity. If the brain is a “reception device,” then explain how this works. What is it receiving? From where? By what mechanism? And most importantly, how does this align with or refute the deterministic processes of learning and memory? These are basic, foundational questions, and your refusal to address them directly makes it impossible to take your position seriously.

You accuse me of operating in a “closed loop,” yet here you are, sidestepping the central issues at every turn. You claim to be addressing the ramifications of my ideas, but what you’re really doing is pontificating without offering any substantive critique. If you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Stop hiding behind rhetorical flourishes and metaphysical smoke screens.

Until you’re willing to engage with the actual arguments—without deflecting into abstractions or rehashing the same tired accusations—there’s no point in continuing this. It’s not a conversation; it’s a performance. And frankly, I have better uses for my time.

And that's why we don't "debate" the religious. They don't see a difference between what is true and what they want to be true.

LOL This coming from one who is one of the most 'religious'. it also believes, absolutely, is some things that are not even true, because it can NOT see the difference.

[Age]

This is exasperating. It is entirely pointless to try to have a meaningful discussion with someone who repeatedly dodges addressing a fundamental issue, despite multiple requests. You parade around the outskirts of the conversation, riffing on metaphysical poetry, invoking yoga philosophy, and referencing Carlyle, but you stubbornly refuse to engage directly with the key question: How does your view of the brain and consciousness—this idea of a “reception device”—actually work, in practical terms?

Do you acknowledge that memories, learning, and adaptations are stored and processed as physical changes in the brain, or don’t you? If not, explain why. If you do, explain how this aligns or conflicts with the deterministic framework I’ve presented. But no, instead of offering clarity, you retreat into abstractions, throwing in quotes and symbolic musings that do nothing to address the substance of what’s being debated.

You claim I’m closed-minded, adamant, and dismissive—fine, let’s assume for argument’s sake that I am. But what exactly is your excuse for refusing to articulate your position on such a key point? You suggest the brain might “receive” consciousness, yet you offer no evidence, no mechanism, no clear explanation. It’s hand-waving, plain and simple, dressed up in ornate language to disguise its emptiness. You can’t keep tossing out vague metaphysical notions as if they’re some kind of intellectual trump card and expect to be taken seriously.

I’m not asking for poetic musings or symbolic interpretations—I’m asking for specificity. If the brain is a “reception device,” then explain how this works. What is it receiving? From where? By what mechanism? And most importantly, how does this align with or refute the deterministic processes of learning and memory? These are basic, foundational questions, and your refusal to address them directly makes it impossible to take your position seriously.

You accuse me of operating in a “closed loop,” yet here you are, sidestepping the central issues at every turn. You claim to be addressing the ramifications of my ideas, but what you’re really doing is pontificating without offering any substantive critique. If you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Stop hiding behind rhetorical flourishes and metaphysical smoke screens.

Until you’re willing to engage with the actual arguments—without deflecting into abstractions or rehashing the same tired accusations—there’s no point in continuing this. It’s not a conversation; it’s a performance. And frankly, I have better uses for my time.

And that's why we don't "debate" the religious. They don't see a difference between what is true and what they want to be true.

Atla,

Exactly. This is the crux of the issue. It’s not a debate when one side refuses to engage with what is demonstrably true—what can be observed, measured, and understood—and instead clings to what they want to believe.

For example, when one refuses to engage with with what is demonstrably true like 'free will' existing because they are clinging to what they want to believe.

When every attempt to pin down specifics is met with abstractions, metaphysical musings, or poetic deflections, it becomes clear that truth isn’t the goal. Preservation of a comforting narrative is.

This is VERY True, along with the other distractions, which you have been providing examples of.

The frustration lies in the fact that these conversations masquerade as intellectual engagement when, in reality, they are performances of belief. There’s no willingness to acknowledge the physical, deterministic foundations of things like learning and memory—things that we know, empirically, to be true. Instead, we’re dragged into rhetorical quicksand, debating ideas rooted not in evidence but in a refusal to let go of cherished assumptions.

Again, you have provided many examples of this, as well.

And this is why it becomes impossible to make progress. It’s not a lack of understanding on their part; it’s a refusal to see the difference between what is and what they wish it to be.

And, you have provided excellent examples of this, also.

At some point, continuing the conversation only feeds the performance, not the pursuit of truth.

VERY True

[BigMike]

And that's why we don't "debate" the religious. They don't see a difference between what is true and what they want to be true.

Atla,

Exactly. This is the crux of the issue. It’s not a debate when one side refuses to engage with what is demonstrably true—what can be observed, measured, and understood—and instead clings to what they want to believe.

For example, when one refuses to engage with with what is demonstrably true like 'free will' existing because they are clinging to what they want to believe.

When every attempt to pin down specifics is met with abstractions, metaphysical musings, or poetic deflections, it becomes clear that truth isn’t the goal. Preservation of a comforting narrative is.

This is VERY True, along with the other distractions, which you have been providing examples of.

The frustration lies in the fact that these conversations masquerade as intellectual engagement when, in reality, they are performances of belief. There’s no willingness to acknowledge the physical, deterministic foundations of things like learning and memory—things that we know, empirically, to be true. Instead, we’re dragged into rhetorical quicksand, debating ideas rooted not in evidence but in a refusal to let go of cherished assumptions.

Again, you have provided many examples of this, as well.

And this is why it becomes impossible to make progress. It’s not a lack of understanding on their part; it’s a refusal to see the difference between what is and what they wish it to be.

And, you have provided excellent examples of this, also.

At some point, continuing the conversation only feeds the performance, not the pursuit of truth.

VERY True

Age,

Ah, yes, the ol’ "I know you are, but what am I?" rebuttal. A classic. If I had a dollar for every time someone declared victory by simply flipping the argument back like a philosophical boomerang, I might just have the funds to finance a free will research institute. Though, ironically, we’d only study how deterministic processes made you type that response.

[Age]

Atla,

Exactly. This is the crux of the issue. It’s not a debate when one side refuses to engage with what is demonstrably true—what can be observed, measured, and understood—and instead clings to what they want to believe.

For example, when one refuses to engage with with what is demonstrably true like 'free will' existing because they are clinging to what they want to believe.

When every attempt to pin down specifics is met with abstractions, metaphysical musings, or poetic deflections, it becomes clear that truth isn’t the goal. Preservation of a comforting narrative is.

This is VERY True, along with the other distractions, which you have been providing examples of.

The frustration lies in the fact that these conversations masquerade as intellectual engagement when, in reality, they are performances of belief. There’s no willingness to acknowledge the physical, deterministic foundations of things like learning and memory—things that we know, empirically, to be true. Instead, we’re dragged into rhetorical quicksand, debating ideas rooted not in evidence but in a refusal to let go of cherished assumptions.

Again, you have provided many examples of this, as well.

And this is why it becomes impossible to make progress. It’s not a lack of understanding on their part; it’s a refusal to see the difference between what is and what they wish it to be.

And, you have provided excellent examples of this, also.

At some point, continuing the conversation only feeds the performance, not the pursuit of truth.

VERY True

Age,

Ah, yes, the ol’ "I know you are, but what am I?" rebuttal. A classic. If I had a dollar for every time someone declared victory by simply flipping the argument back like a philosophical boomerang, I might just have the funds to finance a free will research institute. Though, ironically, we’d only study how deterministic processes made you type that response.

What are you even on about now, here?

Look, you are just doing the EXACT SAME thing that you criticize 'the others' of doing.

This is OBVIOUS, and which can be PLAINLY SEEN, here.

[Belinda]

The overall Law or system is deterministic and does not depend on antecedents alone but on whole nomic system. Our knowledge of both past and future is probabilistic knowledge. Our knowledge of what exists and how we know is probabilistic too. Freedom does not exist in the absence of restrictions but is always relative.


Freedom as it concerns the individual is relative. The Dasein is where the individual being is at. Civilisation is man's attempt to increase the amount and quality of freedom that each Dasein has.

I am not a fan of most religions which are authoritarian to some degree, some more so than others. Few religions are democratic . Despite all the unreason and authoritarianism about religions they seem to be all we have to perpetuate the civilising force of their founders, and as such , even including religions' divisive tendency ,they have been the only media for the message. I know Humanists will object but Humanism is itself a historical development of Christianity via the printing press, the Reformation, and the scientific enlightenment. Probably.

Can the religious be trusted? Trust nobody. Apply scepticism . Make yourself good at evaluating claims. Above all don't idolise any religious doctrine ; idolatry is a danger to your welfare, so think for yourself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And that's why we don't "debate" the religious. They don't see a difference between what is true and what they want to be true.

The issue of what truth is, and then what is true — in lived life as distinct for example from mathematics — is what the Blake quote deals on or explores. What does “eye” mean and what is to “see”.

If you mean to include me in your category of religious, and propose that I cannot distinguish between “truths” of an order generally defined as metaphysical, or distinguish them from science facts or physics facts, you are mistaken. However, I do recognize that religious commitments are infused with the “wants” you describe, especially among zealots. But in my experience there are men who grasp material-science factual truths but who also understand — appreciate, value — those other truths which Blake refers to by referencing the quality of the person who sees.

I intuit that you share BM’s ultra-materialist, and essentially mathematically based approach to examining facts and elevating them to the level where you-plural will say “Only these are true”. My understanding is that, yes, that is certainly something that can be done, and also that it is done, but it results in a limiting and a skewing epistemology. It “distorts from pole to pole”.

Richard Weaver, an ultra-Platonist, wrote about the importance and relevance of one’s “metaphysical dream of the world”. When I propose “cutting to the chase” in regard to BigMike’s ultra-adamant propositions I wish to point out that 1) they will result in the destruction of a type of “eye” that has discerned value and valuable things in our world, but 2) that BigMike is also involved in a religious-like imposition of a radical interpretation of what his “facts” purport to mean. His mood about his project mirrors religious certainty and, certainly, he sees it as having social redemptive power.

That is why the idea of needing a “master metaphysician” to sort through our tendencies in the intellectual realm is to me an important one.

[Belinda]

And that's why we don't "debate" the religious. They don't see a difference between what is true and what they want to be true.

The issue of what truth is, and then what is true — in lived life as distinct for example from mathematics — is what the Blake quote deals on or explores. What does “eye” mean and what is to “see”.

If you mean to include me in your category of religious, and propose that I cannot distinguish between “truths” of an order generally defined as metaphysical, or distinguish them from science facts or physics facts, you are mistaken. However, I do recognize that religious commitments are infused with the “wants” you describe, especially among zealots. But in my experience there are men who grasp material-science factual truths but who also understand — appreciate, value — those other truths which Blake refers to by referencing the quality of the person who sees.

I intuit that you share BM’s ultra-materialist, and essentially mathematically based approach to examining facts and elevating them to the level where you-plural will say “Only these are true”. My understanding is that, yes, that is certainly something that can be done, and also that it is done, but it results in a limiting and a skewing epistemology. It “distorts from pole to pole”.

Richard Weaver, an ultra-Platonist, wrote about the importance and relevance of one’s “metaphysical dream of the world”. When I propose “cutting to the chase” in regard to BigMike’s ultra-adamant propositions I wish to point out that 1) they will result in the destruction of a type of “eye” that has discerned value and valuable things in our world, but 2) that BigMike is also involved in a religious-like imposition of a radical interpretation of what his “facts” purport to mean. His mood about his project mirrors religious certainty and, certainly, he sees it as having social redemptive power.

That is why the idea of needing a “master metaphysician” to sort through our tendencies in the intellectual realm is to me an important one.

But there are no facts, only probabilities. There may be Platonic Truth but all we poor souls can know of truth is not the Platonic Form Truth but merely probability. This is not "a mathematically geared approach"(AJ) but is ordinary common or garden humility.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Exactly. This is the crux of the issue. It’s not a debate when one side refuses to engage with what is demonstrably true—what can be observed, measured, and understood—and instead clings to what they want to believe. When every attempt to pin down specifics is met with abstractions, metaphysical musings, or poetic deflections, it becomes clear that truth isn’t the goal. Preservation of a comforting narrative is.

A perfect example of an ultra-interpretive posture that is blind to what itself does! This is exactly what I meant in my post just above.

Yes, it definitely is “the crux” of the issue. And the difference turns precisely on what Blake meant by referencing the “eye”.

I do not debate a great deal in what scientific eyes “see”. It is impossible to do so. Just like you I can look through a telescope. It is really an issue about different types of epistemological truth.

When every attempt to pin down specifics is met with abstractions, metaphysical musings, or poetic deflections, it becomes clear that truth isn’t the goal.

It is really a question about what “truth” is. I do not debate the boiling temperature of water at 500 meters. But I definitely have all manner of good reasons to take positions on issues of meaning & value and those questions are deeply metaphysical.

For this reason I can turn the condemnation around and propose that I am uncertain if BigMike’s actual goal is truth. He seems to be involved in self-deception.

Zealotry often results in that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Dubious,

Your response is thoughtful, and I appreciate that you ground even metaphysical pondering within the framework of deterministic causation. The brain's ability to process inputs, generate resolutions, and stretch itself into realms of philosophical or theistic speculation—all while being fundamentally rooted in its physical structure—is a fascinating testament to the complexity of deterministic processes.

You’re absolutely right that metaphysical thought, as absurd or profound as it may seem, is itself a deterministic output of the brain’s workings. It doesn’t escape causality; it exemplifies it. The very fact that we can ponder beyond our understanding is, ironically, one of the most remarkable deterministic outcomes of the evolutionary processes that shaped us.

In this light, metaphysics isn’t a contradiction to determinism—it’s one of its more intriguing manifestations. Thank you for phrasing it so succinctly.

Unless I am getting something very wrong, the ramification of the philosophy of BigMike — which is really a physiology (?) — is that it can do nothing but reduce that which is pondered metaphysically, and that which is understood to be metaphysical, into meaninglessness. That is to say that in this ultra-virulent physiology it desires to bring about the destruction of metaphysics. And that is to say all those categories of

understanding and value

that are grounded in metaphysical notions and concepts.

According to Dubious — again if I understand his views — this *brain* concocts metaphysical phantasies but that these are essentially unreal. So, this “stretch(ing) itself into realms of philosophical or theistic speculation” has no real grounding in what can be considered *true*. In any case, whatever truths are thought to exist these are insubstantial truths, evanescent passing impositions, and they cannot compete with physiological truths: i.e. the brain’s confused and disordered processes and concoctions. Dubious has a super-pessimistic view of both man and life, I should add. And again I tend to think that we must take into consideration a man’s psychology when we grapple with his ideas.

The very fact that we can ponder beyond our understanding is, ironically, one of the most remarkable deterministic outcomes of the evolutionary processes that shaped us.

What, I ask, is a good example of *pondering beyond our understanding* when, in truth, all that is going on in that brain is necessarily understood to be unreal. What does the really truthfully grounded brain (who grasps BigMike’s philosophy and ideology) really think about? A whole world of ideas is brutally dismissed and *proper thought* flows into extremely limited, and limiting, channels. Think this through!

That is, if that brain and that vat of interacting chemicals and electrical currents arrives at a *concept* which is, necessarily, a metaphysical notion, how could such a fabulous idea be validated?

Something substantial has been removed from the human equation if these limiting ideas, these reductive ideas, that limit man and consciousness to mere brain function, are given such precedence. There is no way to recover it that I can see once one *believes in* such reductive doctrines.

I do not deny that we have *roots* in physiological structures. But I certainly am not willing to give assent to the implications and ramifications of a quite literally psuedo-philosophy that is based in isolated facts about brain mechanics. It must necessarily destroy philosophy and then transform philosophy into some other sort of discipline altogether.

In this light, metaphysics isn’t a contradiction to determinism—it’s one of its more intriguing manifestations.

This is an absurd statement. I sense that this is one of those (many) points in your discourse where after having snatched away with your left hand what is required to allow philosophy and higher-realm speculation to *exist*, that you clumsily reintroduce it because you cannot, and we cannot, do without it.

[BigMike]

Exactly. This is the crux of the issue. It’s not a debate when one side refuses to engage with what is demonstrably true—what can be observed, measured, and understood—and instead clings to what they want to believe. When every attempt to pin down specifics is met with abstractions, metaphysical musings, or poetic deflections, it becomes clear that truth isn’t the goal. Preservation of a comforting narrative is.

A perfect example of an ultra-interpretive posture that is blind to what itself does! This is exactly what I meant in my post just above.

Yes, it definitely is “the crux” of the issue. And the difference turns precisely on what Blake meant by referencing the “eye”.

I do not debate a great deal in what scientific eyes “see”. It is impossible to do so. Just like you I can look through a telescope. It is really an issue about different types of epistemological truth.

When every attempt to pin down specifics is met with abstractions, metaphysical musings, or poetic deflections, it becomes clear that truth isn’t the goal.

It is really a question about what “truth” is. I do not debate the boiling temperature of water at 500 meters. But I definitely have all manner of good reasons to take positions on issues of meaning & value and those questions are deeply metaphysical.

For this reason I can turn the condemnation around and propose that I am uncertain if BigMike’s actual goal is truth. He seems to be involved in self-deception.

Zealotry often results in that.

Alexis,

Refusing to defend your position when directly challenged is not just evasive—it’s deceptive, cruel, and frankly, disgusting. It’s deceptive because you present yourself as someone engaging in good faith, but when pressed to substantiate your claims, you hide behind abstractions and vague appeals to "different types of epistemological truth." It's cruel because those who engage with you in earnest are met with nothing but intellectual dishonesty and rhetorical deflections, wasting their time and energy. And it’s disgusting because it reeks of arrogance—a smug unwillingness to face the scrutiny that any serious claim requires.

You talk about "truth," but you refuse to define it in practical terms or explain how your metaphysical musings align with reality. When I ask for specifics—about your "reception device" model, for instance—you retreat into lofty but meaningless language about "epistemological truth" and "different orders of perception." This isn’t intellectual engagement; it’s a performance. It’s a way to shield your ideas from criticism by making them impossible to pin down, as though obfuscation is a substitute for depth.

If you truly cared about truth, you’d address direct questions. You’d explain how your ideas work, where they come from, and how they can be tested or verified. But instead, you accuse others of self-deception while refusing to engage honestly yourself. That’s the height of hypocrisy.

So, let’s stop pretending this is about "different types of truth." It’s about accountability. If you won’t defend your position with clarity and rigor, then don’t expect it to be treated with anything other than the contempt it deserves. Refusing to engage seriously isn’t just an intellectual failure—it’s a betrayal of the very principles of dialogue and inquiry you claim to value.