Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[seeds]

When I suggest that people can engage in "introspection, growth, or self-awareness," I’m not saying they can somehow step outside the deterministic framework and magically make uncaused choices. I’m saying that these very suggestions—these ideas—become part of the causal chain. They are inputs that influence outcomes.

Then *that is all you should, or can, say. To suggest introspection, growth, or self-awareness implies one has a choice to introspect, grow, or be self-aware.


*and even that isn't accurate...there's no influencing in your scheme, only causal inevitably...one is driven this way or that: if Joe introspects it's becuz he has to, not becuz he decides to turn inward, and the results of that pseudo-introspection are also what they must be...so: tighten up your language, Mike...if inputs that cause outcomes is what you mean, say that

Henry, let me break this down clearly: all causation, all input, enters the system through our senses and afferent nervous system.

And therein lies the crux of the problem of your philosophy, BigMike.

You never give a logical accounting for exactly what this "our" thing is that receives and analyzes the sensory input.

And, no, BigMike, picturing the physical "brain" as some kind of advanced computer-like structure that is capable of receiving and analyzing sensory data, simply cannot account for what "it" is that "experiences" the qualia of pleasure, or pain, or the taste of an apple, or the smell of a lilac, etc., etc..

Furthermore, our senses originate within the locus of our minds (within our inner being), whereas our five "afferent" and external bodily features...

(eyes, skin, ears, nose, and tongue)

...that correspond with our five inner senses, are but mere "windows" through-which our inner "I Am-ness"...

(that vital and "free-willed" aspect of "our" being that you cannot seem to visualize)

...can either willfully "choose" to peer out into the universe at one moment through the glass-like lens of this most obvious "window"...



...while in the very next moment, again, "willfully choose" to deliberately and literally "pull the shades down" on that window in order to peer into the inner spatial arena of its own mind where it can then "see" (sans physical eyeball) and interact with the phenomenal features of its own thoughts and dreams.

As long as you continue to refuse to offer a truly logical accounting for the strongly emergent, epiphenomenal, self-aware aspect of our inner being that is capable of experiencing qualia, then your theory is weak and incomplete.
______

[BigMike]

Imagine, just for a moment, that humanity somehow manages to put together the definitive, indisputable explanation for the origins of the universe—one that covers everything, from the first quantum fluctuation to the formation of the very first particles and, eventually, galaxies. If we had that, would it change the way we think about determinism and the laws of physics?

Perhaps not, but it would certainly have an impact on your stance regarding the nonexistence of "free will" if...

"...humanity somehow manages to put together the definitive, indisputable explanation for the origins of the universe..."

...and it turns out to have been created by a super-advanced, incorporeal entity who exercised its "free will" to create the universe out of the living fabric of its very own being, as per "Berkeleyanism," for example.
_______

Seeds, let me be clear: any philosophy or theory that cannot be falsified does not belong in the domain of serious scientific or logical discourse. Berkeleyanism, with its idealistic assertion that everything exists as a perception within the mind of a divine observer, might sound fascinating, but its inability to be tested, proven, or disproven renders it a speculative exercise rather than a robust explanation of reality.

Now, let’s address your suggestion that Berkeleyanism could somehow explain free will in humans. For free will to exist in the Berkeleyan framework, we would need a mechanism by which human consciousness—a derivative of this divine observer’s perception—can independently influence the universe. How, exactly, does a human mind, presumably a subset of this divine consciousness, break free from the deterministic "script" of the divine observer's will? If all causation flows from this incorporeal being's act of creation, then every human choice, action, and thought must also stem from that same act. In such a scenario, human "free will" becomes an illusion, just as it is in a deterministic framework governed by physical laws.

If you’re proposing that the divine observer somehow grants humans the ability to make independent choices, that would require introducing a new, unexplained layer of complexity: how does the divine grant independence within a framework it wholly governs? Does this divine consciousness selectively abdicate control over certain aspects of its creation? If so, where is the evidence? And if humans are simply acting out predetermined roles in the divine’s perception, then Berkeleyanism explains nothing about free will—it only relocates determinism from physical laws to metaphysical ones.

Ultimately, Berkeleyanism doesn’t solve the problem of free will. It merely shifts the deterministic framework from observable laws to an unobservable and unfalsifiable entity, leaving us no closer to understanding how humans could possess true volitional freedom. If Berkeleyanism can’t provide testable mechanisms or coherent explanations for free will, then it fails as a serious alternative to determinism. It’s a philosophical dead end.

[attofishpi]

'This' REALLY WAS the LACK OF MATURITY and the LACK OF GROWTH some adults had, back in the days when this was being written.

Says the 1 billion year old virgin, the oldest virgin in the Universe.

* OMG, you might bee right, maybe I am immature!!

What should I do to correct this?

ANSWER: NOTHING.
REASON: I ENJOY BEING IMMATURE, I FIND MY OWN SILLY STATEMENTS HILARIOUS..

Fuck the Big Bang for making me unwilling to change..

Do you actually claim to base your life decisions on what you most enjoy or find hilarious? Have you never found that putting intellectual effort into your life decisions bears good fruit?

I am probably one of the happiest people on this forum awash with miserable "philosophers" - -and I consider being happy a rather important quest to maintain.

I am definitely more intelligent than you Belinda, that makes me a better philosopher than you and of course more intellectual. So it's about time you drop an equivocation between my level of immaturity to my intellectual capacity.

RE Me & you and your "philosopher" types, the proof is in the pudding: viewtopic.php?t=42398&start=75

[BigMike]

Then *that is all you should, or can, say. To suggest introspection, growth, or self-awareness implies one has a choice to introspect, grow, or be self-aware.


*and even that isn't accurate...there's no influencing in your scheme, only causal inevitably...one is driven this way or that: if Joe introspects it's becuz he has to, not becuz he decides to turn inward, and the results of that pseudo-introspection are also what they must be...so: tighten up your language, Mike...if inputs that cause outcomes is what you mean, say that

Henry, let me break this down clearly: all causation, all input, enters the system through our senses and afferent nervous system.

And therein lies the crux of the problem of your philosophy, BigMike.

You never give a logical accounting for exactly what this "our" thing is that receives and analyzes the sensory input.

And, no, BigMike, picturing the physical "brain" as some kind of advanced computer-like structure that is capable of receiving and analyzing sensory data, simply cannot account for what "it" is that "experiences" the qualia of pleasure, or pain, or the taste of an apple, or the smell of a lilac, etc., etc..

Furthermore, our senses originate within the locus of our minds (within our inner being), whereas our five "afferent" and external bodily features...

(eyes, skin, ears, nose, and tongue)

...that correspond with our five inner senses, are but mere "windows" through-which our inner "I Am-ness"...

(that vital and "free-willed" aspect of "our" being that you cannot seem to visualize)

...can either willfully "choose" to peer out into the universe at one moment through the glass-like lens of this most obvious "window"...



...while in the very next moment, again, "willfully choose" to deliberately and literally "pull the shades down" on that window in order to peer into the inner spatial arena of its own mind where it can then "see" (sans physical eyeball) and interact with the phenomenal features of its own thoughts and dreams.

As long as you continue to refuse to offer a truly logical accounting for the strongly emergent, epiphenomenal, self-aware aspect of our inner being that is capable of experiencing qualia, then your theory is weak and incomplete.
______

Seeds, let me break this down as clearly as possible. The process of sensation, perception, and action begins in the realm of biology and physics, not mysticism or metaphysics. When we talk about the sensory system and how the brain processes information, we’re talking about well-understood mechanisms grounded in observable evidence.

Our senses generate signals by converting external stimuli into action potentials—electrical impulses carried by neurons. For example, light hitting the retina activates photoreceptors, which trigger action potentials in the optic nerve. These signals are transmitted to the brain, where they are routed to the appropriate areas—like the visual cortex for sight, the somatosensory cortex for touch, or the auditory cortex for sound.

The important part here is that an action potential is just a spike of about 100 millivolts, identical in form regardless of whether it’s triggered by light, sound, or touch. There’s no "red" or "sweet" encoded in the spike itself. The brain interprets these spikes based on their origin and routing. For instance, signals from the retina are processed in areas of the brain specialized for vision, where patterns of activity create the perception of color or shape.

When it comes to action, these signals progress through networks to the motor cortex or glands, depending on the response needed. The brain integrates information, calculates a response (based on prior experiences, memories, and current context), and sends output signals to muscles or organs via motor neurons.

Now, you suggest there’s something mystical about experiencing qualia—about the subjective "feel" of red or sweet or pain. But qualia aren’t a separate "thing" requiring a mystical explanation. They’re the product of neural computations. The patterns of neural activity associated with a specific stimulus correspond to the subjective experience we label as "red" or "sweet." This isn’t to deny the complexity or profundity of subjective experience, but rather to locate it squarely within the realm of physical processes.

As for your invocation of an "I Am-ness" that "chooses" to "peer through the window," you’re introducing an unnecessary and unsubstantiated layer of complexity. If your argument relies on free will as a starting premise, then explain how this "I Am-ness" escapes the deterministic or probabilistic framework of neuronal activity. Does it have its own rules? Its own causality? How does it interact with the physical brain, and where is the evidence?

Your perspective might feel profound, but it offers no explanatory power for how sensory input is converted to action. Instead, it obscures the well-documented processes we already understand by introducing metaphysical speculation that neither predicts outcomes nor provides testable mechanisms. Until "I Am-ness" or "qualia" are shown to require something outside the known laws of physics and biology, they remain part of the deterministic framework. This is not a weakness—it’s clarity.

[Age]

When I mention introspection, growth, or self-awareness (or influence)....

...you're usin' words that mean much more than input. If you truly believe in this meat machine nonsense, then my input ought lead to the output: you amend your posts.

But you won't. Not becuz it's causally inevitable you shouldn't but becuz you choose not to, just like any other free will.

Thank you. What is SO OBVIOUS, to some, can be COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS, to others. And, vice versa.

[accelafine]

You still are and will remain boxed.

See, I'd point out to a fellow free will that it's damn silly to box me but still read and respond to my posts.

With you, though...well, you're just a meat machine...you have no more self-control than a toaster does. I press your button: you make toast. I wonder what else I can make you do?

This is gonna be fun.

If you've asked someone to put you on ignore then why would you keep quoting them? You realise they still get notifications don't you?

[Age]

Imagine, just for a moment, that humanity somehow manages to put together the definitive, indisputable explanation for the origins of the universe—

It is this kind of ABSOLUTE NONSENSE WHY the human beings, in the days when this was being written, took SO, SO LONG to COME TO and FIND the ACTUAL EXPLANATION.

LOL PRESUMING and/or BELIEVING that there WAS 'an origin', of the Universe, is the VERY REASON WHY 'they', BACK THEN, TOOK SO, SO LONG.

one that covers everything, from the first quantum fluctuation to the formation of the very first particles and, eventually, galaxies. If we had that, would it change the way we think about determinism and the laws of physics? Let’s unpack it.

What you MEAN IS 'you' will 'unpack it' ALONE, and then EXPECT EVERY one TO AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT, your OWN personal version. Which, OBVIOUSLY, ALL of it comes FROM your OWN personal past experiences, ONLY.

First off, determinism, as we currently understand it, rests on the idea that the universe operates according to consistent laws of cause and effect.

LOL 'determinism, as 'we' currently understand it'. you speak and write as though there are other dimensions of 'determinism', itself, that you are, STILL, NOT YET AWARE OF.

Which, if True, then how about you WAIT until you have FULL UNDERSTANDING.

Every state of the universe is the result of the one before it.

EXCEPT, you, LAUGHINGLY, CLAIM that there WAS 'a beginning'. Which, OBVIOUSLY, MEANS that there was NO 'before' it.

And, if you, STILL, can NOT SEE the CONTRADICTIONS in your CLAIMS, here, then you are FAR MORE BLIND and STUPID than I FIRST SAW, and REALIZED.

Now, if we cracked the ultimate code of the universe’s beginning, we’d essentially be saying, “Here’s the very first cause.” But—and this is crucial—that wouldn’t necessarily undermine determinism.

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

It COMPLETELY and UTTERLY DESTROYS and ANNIHILATES 'determinism', ABSOLUTELY.

LOL Sometimes you want to CLAIM 'determinism' 'rests on' and 'operates' according to consistent laws of cause and effect, HOWEVER, and ALSO, the 'consistent laws of cause and effect' may NOT be 'consistent' AT ALL, and may well have just BEGUN.

The further you are going, here, the STRANGER and MORE ILLOGICAL your views and BELIEFS are BECOMING.

In fact, it would do the opposite. It would root our deterministic understanding even more firmly in the bedrock of physical reality, because we’d have traced causality all the way back to its starting line.

And in THE PROCESS DESTROYING 'determinism', causality, and the law of cause and effect COMPLETELY.

Now, here’s where things get interesting. Would it redefine the laws of physics? Well, maybe not in their entirety, but it could give us profound insights into why those laws exist as they do.

AND, maybe it WILL.

BUT, 'maybes' are NOT really worthy of 'looking at' and DELVING INTO.

For example, if the universe emerged from some kind of deeper framework—something like a multiverse or a meta-law that governs the creation of universes—then what we currently think of as “laws” might turn out to be local rules specific to our universe.

1. This One and ONLY Universe is NOT 'your' Universe.

2. WHEN, and IF, you EVER STOP PRESUMING or BELIEVING that this One and ONLY eternal and infinite Universe 'began', then you WILL BE one step CLOSER to being ABLE TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truths REALLY ARE, here.

3. There is absolutely NOTHING hard NOR complex to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, here. The Universe, fundamentally, is made up of 'matter' AND 'space', which co-exist ALWAYS, in a continual CHANGING of way, shape, and/or form, and 'this' is just evolution creating Itself, ALWAYS.

It’d be like realizing that Monopoly’s rules only apply because you opened that particular box, and there’s a whole shelf of other games with their own sets of instructions.

And 'this' is another prime example of how IMAGINATION, combined with pre-existing BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS, can, and DID, lead people COMPLETELY ASTRAY.

Here’s another angle: what if this ultimate explanation revealed something about the limits of predictability?

'What if ...', AGAIN.

The ULTIMATE EXPLANATION IS there is ONLY One Universe, which NEVER began, will NOT end, and does NOT expand.

AND, if absolutely ANY one would like the IRREFUTABLE PROOF for the IRREFUTABLE Fact, then let 'us' HAVE A DISCUSSION.

Say, the initial conditions of the universe were so finely tuned or subject to quantum indeterminacy that they’re effectively unknowable in practice, even if deterministic in principle.

Talk about another example of picking words, which do NOT actually belong NOR work together.

That wouldn’t negate determinism, but it might force us to grapple with the reality that understanding everything about the present doesn’t necessarily mean we can fully rewind—or fast-forward—the cosmic clock.

So, in the end, understanding the universe’s beginning wouldn’t necessarily change determinism itself; instead, it would deepen our understanding of it.

Here is ANOTHER example of just MAKING 'stuff' UP.

It would shift our perspective, helping us see determinism not as a static framework but as something emergent, intertwined with the universe’s very fabric. And it would likely raise even bigger questions—because if we know how the universe began, the next question is, “Why this universe and not some other one?” And that, my friends, could keep us busy for quite a while.

The HOW AND the WHY are ALREADY KNOWN. Well at least by some of 'us', here.

AGAIN, the Universe NEVER begun, and to PRESUME or BELIEVE that It did, is just ANOTHER example of INSANITY, itself.

[Age]

Honest educators aim to increase your ability to introspect, grow, or be self-aware.

Honest educators who are free wills can; *meat machines cannot.

What you call a "meat machine", like 'artificial intelligence', CAN DO whatever 'they' have been PROGRAMMED TO DO. So, if a "meat machine", like 'artificial intelligence', has been PROGRAMMED TO BE an 'honest educator', then 'they' CAN BE.

But, obviously what 'they' can 'educate' others on is LIMITED. EXACTLY like you adult human beings, here, are LIMITED in what you CAN, and CAN NOT, teach, and 'educate', others about.

*what you and Mike and the other determinists believe yourselves to be

Just because this one BELIEVES that it is 'free will' NEVER necessarily means that 'it' is.

Obviously this one would have to, FIRST, provide its definition of what the 'free will' words MEAN, and/or REFER TO, exactly, and THEN, and ONLY THEN, 'we' can SEE what the ACTUAL Truth is, here.

[Age]

Then *that is all you should, or can, say. To suggest introspection, growth, or self-awareness implies one has a choice to introspect, grow, or be self-aware.


*and even that isn't accurate...there's no influencing in your scheme, only causal inevitably...one is driven this way or that: if Joe introspects it's becuz he has to, not becuz he decides to turn inward, and the results of that pseudo-introspection are also what they must be...so: tighten up your language, Mike...if inputs that cause outcomes is what you mean, say that

Henry, let me break this down clearly: all causation, all input, enters the system through our senses and afferent nervous system.

And therein lies the crux of the problem of your philosophy, BigMike.

You never give a logical accounting for exactly what this "our" thing is that receives and analyzes the sensory input.

LOL NONE of 'you' have.

Each and EVERY time I have QUESTIONED you people, here, on who and/or what is the 'our' word, (and/or the 'we', 'I', 'me', or 'you' words are), referring to, EXACTLY, then NO explanation of what these 'things' ARE, exactly. is provided.

And, no, BigMike, picturing the physical "brain" as some kind of advanced computer-like structure that is capable of receiving and analyzing sensory data, simply cannot account for what "it" is that "experiences" the qualia of pleasure, or pain, or the taste of an apple, or the smell of a lilac, etc., etc..

But what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, has ALREADY been PARTLY EXPLAINED, to you. But, like a lot of the others, here, you just do NOT want to HEAR, and DISCUSS, the EXPLANATION.

Furthermore, our senses

And therein lies the crux of the issue of your philosophy, "seeds".

You never give a logical accounting for exactly what this "our" thing is. Full stop.

originate within the locus of our minds (within our inner being), whereas our five "afferent" and external bodily features...

Here 'we' have ANOTHER example of HOW and WHEN USING the 'mind' word EXPLAINS WHY 'these ones' took SO, SO LONG to CATCH UP and UNDERSTAND.

(eyes, skin, ears, nose, and tongue)

...that correspond with our five inner senses, are but mere "windows" through-which our inner "I Am-ness"...

And therein lies the crux of the issue of your philosophy, "seeds".

You never give a logical accounting for exactly what this 'I AM-ness' thing is, EXACTLY.

(that vital and "free-willed" aspect of "our" being that you cannot seem to visualize)

And, which 'you', OBVIOUSLY, have NOT YET ACTUALLY VISUALIZED, ALSO

...can either willfully "choose" to peer out into the universe at one moment through the glass-like lens of this most obvious "window"...



...while in the very next moment, again, "willfully choose" to deliberately and literally "pull the shades down" on that window in order to peer into the inner spatial arena of its own mind where it can then "see" (sans physical eyeball) and interact with the phenomenal features of its own thoughts and dreams.

As long as you continue to refuse to offer a truly logical accounting for the strongly emergent, epiphenomenal, self-aware aspect of our inner being that is capable of experiencing qualia, then your theory is weak and incomplete.
______

Do 'you' BELIEVE that 'your theory' is strong and/or complete?

[Age]

Imagine, just for a moment, that humanity somehow manages to put together the definitive, indisputable explanation for the origins of the universe—one that covers everything, from the first quantum fluctuation to the formation of the very first particles and, eventually, galaxies. If we had that, would it change the way we think about determinism and the laws of physics?

Perhaps not, but it would certainly have an impact on your stance regarding the nonexistence of "free will" if...

"...humanity somehow manages to put together the definitive, indisputable explanation for the origins of the universe..."

...and it turns out to have been created by a super-advanced, incorporeal entity who exercised its "free will" to create the universe out of the living fabric of its very own being, as per "Berkeleyanism," for example.
_______

Seeds, let me be clear: any philosophy or theory that cannot be falsified does not belong in the domain of serious scientific or logical discourse.

This could make some wonder if this one KNOWS that it is NOT in a 'science forum'?

Anyway, this one's theory can obviously be Falsified, and ALREADY HAS BEEN Falsified.

But, this will NOT stop this one from continuing, and carrying, on, here.

Berkeleyanism, with its idealistic assertion that everything exists as a perception within the mind of a divine observer, might sound fascinating, but its inability to be tested, proven, or disproven renders it a speculative exercise rather than a robust explanation of reality.

But, what is True and Right about 'it' has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN, AND, what was False and Wrong about 'it' has ALREADY BEEN DISPROVEN.

Of which, OBVIOUSLY, some of you have NOT YET BEEN SAVVY TO.

Now, let’s address your suggestion that Berkeleyanism could somehow explain free will in humans. For free will to exist in the Berkeleyan framework, we would need a mechanism by which human consciousness—a derivative of this divine observer’s perception—can independently influence the universe. How, exactly, does a human mind, presumably a subset of this divine consciousness, break free from the deterministic "script" of the divine observer's will?

VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY. As I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED, TO you.

And, that you WANTED TO IGNORE 'it', is just FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF of 'free will' AT WORK, itself.

'It' being ALREADY INTRODUCED INTO 'the causal chain' and 'you' CHOOSING, FREELY, to IGNORE 'it' PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, 'free will' AT WORK, and AT PLAY, here.

If all causation flows from this incorporeal being's act of creation, then every human choice, action, and thought must also stem from that same act. In such a scenario, human "free will" becomes an illusion, just as it is in a deterministic framework governed by physical laws.

If you’re proposing that the divine observer somehow grants humans the ability to make independent choices,

What do 'you' MEAN by 'independent choices', EXACTLY?

If you EVER get around to EXPLAINING 'this', then, and ONLY THEN, can 'you' BE SHOWN WHERE and WHEN 'your' OWN 'personal views and BELIEFS' are PREVENTING and STOPPING 'you' FROM SEEING the ACTUAL Truth of things, here.

that would require introducing a new, unexplained layer of complexity: how does the divine grant independence within a framework it wholly governs? Does this divine consciousness selectively abdicate control over certain aspects of its creation? If so, where is the evidence?

LOL
LOL
LOL

BE-CAUSE OF 'your' OWN PERSONAL 'past experiences' 'you' are NOT YET ABLE TO SEE, COMPREHEND, and UNDERSTAND the EVIDENCE, and the PROOF, here.

'you' HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL 'you' have been READIED, BEFORE the ACTUAL Truth of things can be REVEALED, TO 'you'.

you are AWARE of HOW 'determinism', itself, WORKS, right?

you KNOW that you can NOT just CHOOSE to SEE and LEARN things, right?

you KNOW that you HAVE TO WAIT for the Right CONDITIONS, and CONDITIONING, BEFORE you can SEE, CLEARLY, and GRASP the Truth, correct?

And if humans are simply acting out predetermined roles in the divine’s perception, then Berkeleyanism explains nothing about free will—it only relocates determinism from physical laws to metaphysical ones.

What do you, personally, MEAN by your USE of the 'meta' word before the 'physical' word, EXACTLY?

Ultimately, Berkeleyanism doesn’t solve the problem of free will.

There WAS and IS NO 'problem' of 'free will'.

AGAIN, 'you' just USE those two words in A WAY and in A DEFINITION that it is A COMPLETE IMPOSSIBILITY for 'that' to exist. SIMPLE, REALLY.

It merely shifts the deterministic framework from observable laws to an unobservable and unfalsifiable entity, leaving us no closer to understanding how humans could possess true volitional freedom.

LOL What you call 'unobservable' and 'unfalsifiable' has ALREADY been SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD.

your PRESUMPTIONS, here, are just letting you DOWN and FAILING you, ONCE AGAIN.

If Berkeleyanism can’t provide testable mechanisms or coherent explanations for free will, then it fails as a serious alternative to determinism. It’s a philosophical dead end.

LOL What 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER human being who BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that 'it' IS 'one' OR 'the other', ONLY.

[Age]

Says the 1 billion year old virgin, the oldest virgin in the Universe.

* OMG, you might bee right, maybe I am immature!!

What should I do to correct this?

ANSWER: NOTHING.
REASON: I ENJOY BEING IMMATURE, I FIND MY OWN SILLY STATEMENTS HILARIOUS..

Fuck the Big Bang for making me unwilling to change..

Do you actually claim to base your life decisions on what you most enjoy or find hilarious? Have you never found that putting intellectual effort into your life decisions bears good fruit?

I am probably one of the happiest people on this forum awash with miserable "philosophers"

The "dunning-kruger effect" affects so many people in so many different ways. Here 'we' have ANOTHER example.

- -and I consider being happy a rather important quest to maintain.

LOL you make it sound like 'being happy' is some thing one STRIVES to achieve.

WHY, exactly, is just 'being happy' A QUEST, 'to maintain'?

I am definitely more intelligent than you Belinda, that makes me a better philosopher than you and of course more intellectual.

ONCE AGAIN, those with the so-called "dunning-kruger effect" are the very LAST to even KNOW what is actually going on.

So it's about time you drop an equivocation between my level of immaturity to my intellectual capacity.

RE Me & you and your "philosopher" types, the proof is in the pudding: viewtopic.php?t=42398&start=75

Was this link meant to link the readers, here, to ANY thing IN PARTICULAR?

If yes, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?

[attofishpi]

The "dunning-kruger effect"..bla bla bla...

Again, don't expect me to point out the irony.

Ah, bugger it. Pretty certain everyone on this forum is aware of you as being a PRIME example of the "dunning-kruger effect".

[Age]

Henry, let me break this down clearly: all causation, all input, enters the system through our senses and afferent nervous system.

And therein lies the crux of the problem of your philosophy, BigMike.

You never give a logical accounting for exactly what this "our" thing is that receives and analyzes the sensory input.

And, no, BigMike, picturing the physical "brain" as some kind of advanced computer-like structure that is capable of receiving and analyzing sensory data, simply cannot account for what "it" is that "experiences" the qualia of pleasure, or pain, or the taste of an apple, or the smell of a lilac, etc., etc..

Furthermore, our senses originate within the locus of our minds (within our inner being), whereas our five "afferent" and external bodily features...

(eyes, skin, ears, nose, and tongue)

...that correspond with our five inner senses, are but mere "windows" through-which our inner "I Am-ness"...

(that vital and "free-willed" aspect of "our" being that you cannot seem to visualize)

...can either willfully "choose" to peer out into the universe at one moment through the glass-like lens of this most obvious "window"...



...while in the very next moment, again, "willfully choose" to deliberately and literally "pull the shades down" on that window in order to peer into the inner spatial arena of its own mind where it can then "see" (sans physical eyeball) and interact with the phenomenal features of its own thoughts and dreams.

As long as you continue to refuse to offer a truly logical accounting for the strongly emergent, epiphenomenal, self-aware aspect of our inner being that is capable of experiencing qualia, then your theory is weak and incomplete.
______

Seeds, let me break this down as clearly as possible. The process of sensation, perception, and action begins in the realm of biology and physics, not mysticism or metaphysics. When we talk about the sensory system and how the brain processes information, we’re talking about well-understood mechanisms grounded in observable evidence.

Our senses generate signals by converting external stimuli into action potentials—electrical impulses carried by neurons. For example, light hitting the retina activates photoreceptors, which trigger action potentials in the optic nerve. These signals are transmitted to the brain, where they are routed to the appropriate areas—like the visual cortex for sight, the somatosensory cortex for touch, or the auditory cortex for sound.

The important part here is that an action potential is just a spike of about 100 millivolts, identical in form regardless of whether it’s triggered by light, sound, or touch. There’s no "red" or "sweet" encoded in the spike itself. The brain interprets these spikes based on their origin and routing.

Actually the brain interprets these so-called 'spikes' based on 'past experiences', only.

Even you just said and claimed that there is no 'red' nor' 'sweet' encoded in the 'spike'. So, the brain does NOT interpret things based on 'their origins and routing'. The brain 'interprets' things, based on 'previous inputs'. Things 'origins and routing' just end up in the brain, where things are then 'interpreted'. And, ALL 'interpretations' are based upon 'previous experiences', or 'previous inputs'.

For instance, signals from the retina are processed in areas of the brain specialized for vision, where patterns of activity create the perception of color or shape.

When it comes to action, these signals progress through networks to the motor cortex or glands, depending on the response needed.

'This', here, is another example of one BELIEVING that 'it' KNOWS things, based on NOTHING MORE than 'previous inputs'.

The brain integrates information, calculates a response (based on prior experiences, memories, and current context), and sends output signals to muscles or organs via motor neurons.

Now, you suggest there’s something mystical about experiencing qualia—about the subjective "feel" of red or sweet or pain. But qualia aren’t a separate "thing" requiring a mystical explanation.

Did that person, REALLY, actually suggest that there is something mystical? Or, is this just your OWN personal 'interpretation', which was MADE, based on NOTHING MORE than 'previous experiences' or 'previous inputs'?

They’re the product of neural computations. The patterns of neural activity associated with a specific stimulus correspond to the subjective experience we label as "red" or "sweet." This isn’t to deny the complexity or profundity of subjective experience, but rather to locate it squarely within the realm of physical processes.

As for your invocation of an "I Am-ness" that "chooses" to "peer through the window," you’re introducing an unnecessary and unsubstantiated layer of complexity.

Although there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL 'complex', here, just maybe that brain, and its conclusions, based SOLELY on that body's past experiences, ONLY, has NOT allowed 'that brain' to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what other brains CAN.

If your argument relies on free will as a starting premise, then explain how this "I Am-ness" escapes the deterministic or probabilistic framework of neuronal activity.

LOL Explain WHY you KEEP bringing in the so-called 'red herring' of 'free will' is OUTSIDE of 'determinism'?

LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, WHY you KEEP DOING 'this', then you WILL be another step CLOSER TO LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING, what IS IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, here.

Does it have its own rules? Its own causality? How does it interact with the physical brain, and where is the evidence?

Your perspective might feel profound, but it offers no explanatory power for how sensory input is converted to action.

AND, you, "yourself", KEEP MESSING UP EXPLAINING what IS ABSOLUTELY Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

Instead, it obscures the well-documented processes we already understand by introducing metaphysical speculation that neither predicts outcomes nor provides testable mechanisms.

AND, you, "yourself", have COUNTERED and REFUTED your OWN 'predicted outcomes', as well as Falsified your OWN 'testable outcomes'.

Until "I Am-ness" or "qualia" are shown to require something outside the known laws of physics and biology, they remain part of the deterministic framework. This is not a weakness—it’s clarity.

OF COURSE 'they' REMAIN a part of the 'deterministic framework'.

AND, that you, STILL, can NOT YET SEE 'this' IS BECAUSE of the 'deterministic framework', itself.

you, OBVIOUSLY, WILL just HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

[Age]

The "dunning-kruger effect"..bla bla bla...

Again, don't expect me to point out the irony.

Ah, bugger it. Pretty certain everyone on this forum is aware of you as being a PRIME example of the "dunning-kruger effect".

That you CAN NOT, and WILL NOT, POINT OUT the ALLEGED 'irony', SHOWS and REVEALS FAR MORE, here.

And, you can be so-called 'pretty certain' ABOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that you like, but IF what you are 'pretty sure' ABOUT is ACTUALLY True OR NOT, you WILL HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

Now, I CHALLENGE ABSOLUTELY ANY one to PROVIDE an ACTUAL example of 'me' AND the "dunning-kruger effect".

OBVIOUSLY I have VERY CLEARLY POINTED OUT and SHOWN WHERE, and WHEN, "attofishpi" HAS. Now, let 'us' SEE if ABSOLUTELY ANY one can do the SAME, WITH 'me'. After all "attofishpi" is 'PRETTY CERTAIN' that ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, on this forum, is AWARE of 'me' being a PRIME example of the "dunning-kruger effect".

[attofishpi]

The "dunning-kruger effect"..bla bla bla...

Again, don't expect me to point out the irony.

Ah, bugger it. Pretty certain everyone on this forum is aware of you as being a PRIME example of the "dunning-kruger effect".

That you CAN NOT, and WILL NOT, POINT OUT the ALLEGED 'irony', SHOWS and REVEALS FAR MORE, here.

And, you can be so-called 'pretty certain' ABOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that you like, but IF what you are 'pretty sure' ABOUT is ACTUALLY True OR NOT, you WILL HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

Now, I CHALLENGE ABSOLUTELY ANY one to PROVIDE an ACTUAL example of 'me' AND the "dunning-kruger effect".

OBVIOUSLY I have VERY CLEARLY POINTED OUT and SHOWN WHERE, and WHEN, "attofishpi" HAS. Now, let 'us' SEE if ABSOLUTELY ANY one can do the SAME, WITH 'me'. After all "attofishpi" is 'PRETTY CERTAIN' that ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, on this forum, is AWARE of 'me' being a PRIME example of the "dunning-kruger effect".

The red bit above IS the irony pointed out to you, after I stated "Ah, bugger it."

(* the irony of U calling ME an example of the "DKE")

The FACT that you didn't notice that the IRONY was pointed out in my post is another PRIME example of you and the "dunning-kruger effect"...

HOW IRONIC!!!!!!