Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:59 am**

Gee wrote: THEY COULD BE WRONG.
Gee

Or they could be right.

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:06 am**

Religion is based on faith in that which cannot be proven. Science is based on evidence that can be tested and proven. There is no real conflict, only the made up ones of small minds.

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:37 am**

thedoc wrote:Religion is based on faith in that which cannot be proven. Science is based on evidence that can be tested and proven. There is no real conflict, only the made up ones of small minds.

evidence... and the faith that the future will resemble the past

-Imp

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:57 am**

Chaz;

You are actually making some sense to me now, so being the optimist that I am, I will to try to respond to you. Hopefully this will make some sense to you.

chaz wyman wrote:You might be tempted to test your ideas in another public forum or continue with this one. It should not matter to you if i agree with them or not. Others may find them interesting, or plausible.

I really don't care if you believe my ideas or agree with them. We each have our own opinions, and I have no need to inflict mine on you--do you feel the same?

chaz wyman wrote:I hope I have shown you where its weak spots are.

This is not possible. In order to show me where my weak spots are, you would have to first have a clue as to what I am talking about--from your responses, I know that you do not.

This is the reason that I prefer Socratic discussion to debate. In Socratic discussion one must actually listen to the other party and consider what is said; in debate one must analyze weak spots in an argument to undermine the other party's position. I worked in law for years and am very familiar with debate. I find that debate is a wrestling match between parties where the biggest and the baddest wins--and truth loses. Socrates would never approve of this kind of nonsense in philosophy as he valued truth, but I also know that this concept is taught in universities and sold as worthy of philosophy.

chaz wyman wrote:You ought to be able to develop from that position. With each generation of thinking, rebuttal and reconfiguration, any knowledge set will be more robust, and continue to grow. Along the way the ideas will either die, grow or change, hopefully they will not be recognisable from the first small steps.

This sounds good, but it doesn't help me at all. I have been studying consciousness all of my life, more than 40 years, and along the way many ideas have died, grown, and changed. But I did not do this studying formally, and I did not do it to share knowledge with the world. I did it so that I would recognize what is true and what is not true--for personal understanding. I assumed that many people understood the same thing.

I was wrong. After joining a philosophy forum last year, and then spending weeks studying consciousness in the SEP (the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) I discovered that people did not seem to have any idea of what I think consciousness is. So I tried to explain. Ha. What a joke.

Have you ever tried to explain something that you recognize? It is very difficult. Try to pick out a person's face that you would recognize, then write the words that will explain what that person looks like so that when I read them, I will be able to pick out that person from a crowd. Then consider that I have preconceived ideas of what that person looks like, so I am not really listening to your words, and the difficult task becomes impossible!

What I need from a forum are intelligent educated people who will question me so that I can bring my understanding from the back of my mind to the front and put it into words. I also want to learn about anything that I don't already know or understand.

What I do not need are people who do not listen, assume that they know my position, and work to confront a nonexistent position. That is a lot like having a child who is learning to badly and loudly play a horn while I am trying to read or think. Not helpful.

Gee

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:18 am**

Cut to the chase.

For you as I stated initially, this is all about religion.

But which one is my question?

Catholicism, perhaps.

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:00 am**

Hi TheDoc;

Nice to talk to you again.

thedoc wrote:Religion is based on faith in that which cannot be proven. Science is based on evidence that can be tested and proven. There is no real conflict, only the made up ones of small minds.

I agree with a lot of this, but know that things that were once unprovable are now provable.

Consider that there was a time that we believed that a tsunami was evidence of the water god's anger. What did we call him? Posidan? I don't remember how to spell the name.

There was even a time when we thought that the sun was representative of a god. But we know better now, as science has explained both of these "gods".

Now we have a god of consciousness, probably the last big mystery of life. I expect that like the other gods, this God will one day be explained.

If my understanding of consciousness is even close to correct, then what I recognize is that science is becoming more adept at identifying consciousness in many different fields. When they finally put it all together, we will actually understand consciousness.

At that time, we will have demystified consciousness, so we may no longer call it God. But we will still need religion. Just as demystifying the sun or water did not stop us from needing these things for life, demystifying consciousness will not stop us from being spiritual beings. We will still need spiritual guidance. We will still need morals. We will still need the comforts of religions, the charities of religions, and the guidance in our lives from religion. We will still need something to believe in that is greater than ourselves.

I was raised as a Catholic in childhood, and I distinctly remember going through many different changes as I acquired more and more information and understanding of consciousness. It was difficult to give up the fantasies of my childhood. On the other hand, a better understanding of consciousness has given me a knowledge, rather than faith, of much of what God stands for, which is comforting. Religion did not do so bad a job at understanding God/consciousness.

Gee

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:02 am**

reasonvemotion wrote:Cut to the chase.

For you as I stated initially, this is all about religion.

But which one is my question?

Catholicism, perhaps.

Good guess!

Of course it is about religion, as religion is the study of consciousness.

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:43 pm**

thedoc wrote:Religion is based on faith in that which cannot be proven. Science is based on evidence that can be tested and proven. There is no real conflict, only the made up ones of small minds.

The conflict lies in the times when Faith has been used to do science.
When the Bishop of Durum declares that the storms are because god is angry with gays, for example.
Or when the Pope says that condoms cause AIDS.
Or when a Rabbi repeated gives baby boys Herpes, some dying of the infection, because he performs oral Bris.
That is grounds for lots of conflict, don't you think?

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:53 pm**

Gee wrote:Chaz;

You are actually making some sense to me now, so being the optimist that I am, I will to try to respond to you. Hopefully this will make some sense to you.
chaz wyman wrote:You might be tempted to test your ideas in another public forum or continue with this one. It should not matter to you if i agree with them or not. Others may find them interesting, or plausible.
I really don't care if you believe my ideas or agree with them. We each have our own opinions, and I have no need to inflict mine on you--do you feel the same?

Is that not what we are all doing here?

chaz wyman wrote:I hope I have shown you where its weak spots are.
This is not possible. In order to show me where my weak spots are, you would have to first have a clue as to what I am talking about--from your responses, I know that you do not.

I know what you are on about backwards, and forwards

This is the reason that I prefer Socratic discussion to debate. In Socratic discussion one must actually listen to the other party and consider what is said; in debate one must analyze weak spots in an argument to undermine the other party's position.
Give me your best shot.
I worked in law for years and am very familiar with debate. I find that debate is a wrestling match between parties where the biggest and the baddest wins--and truth loses. Socrates would never approve of this kind of nonsense in philosophy as he valued truth, but I also know that this concept is taught in universities and sold as worthy of philosophy.
Socrates would have made a first class lawyer. There is less difference than you think. Socrates usually left his interlocutors quivering jellies, having shot themselves in their owen foot, under Socrates' gentle guidance.
chaz wyman wrote:You ought to be able to develop from that position. With each generation of thinking, rebuttal and reconfiguration, any knowledge set will be more robust, and continue to grow. Along the way the ideas will either die, grow or change, hopefully they will not be recognisable from the first small steps.
This sounds good, but it doesn't help me at all. I have been studying consciousness all of my life, more than 40 years, and along the way many ideas have died, grown, and changed. But I did not do this studying formally, and I did not do it to share knowledge with the world. I did it so that I would recognize what is true and what is not true--for personal understanding. I assumed that many people understood the same thing.

You need also to study evolution before you throw it out of the window as you have.
But what exactly do you think you have learned about consciousness that others have not?

I was wrong. After joining a philosophy forum last year, and then spending weeks studying consciousness in the SEP (the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) I discovered that people did not seem to have any idea of what I think consciousness is. So I tried to explain. Ha. What a joke.
Well I think trying to understand consciousness by objectifying it is like trying to study your telescope by looking through its own lens - you can only know what it does, but you cannot se how it works.
Have you ever tried to explain something that you recognize? It is very difficult. Try to pick out a person's face that you would recognize, then write the words that will explain what that person looks like so that when I read them, I will be able to pick out that person from a crowd. Then consider that I have preconceived ideas of what that person looks like, so I am not really listening to your words, and the difficult task becomes impossible!

Actually I try to do this very thing every time I try to get a likeness when I am making a sculpture of another persons face.
You can only ever end up with an impression; a sort of physical metaphor

What I need from a forum are intelligent educated people who will question me so that I can bring my understanding from the back of my mind to the front and put it into words. I also want to learn about anything that I don't already know or understand.

What I do not need are people who do not listen, assume that they know my position, and work to confront a nonexistent position. That is a lot like having a child who is learning to badly and loudly play a horn while I am trying to read or think. Not helpful.

If I do not know your position, the it is only because you have not stated it clearly enough - look to yourself before you insult others.

Gee

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:55 pm**

Gee wrote:
reasonvemotion wrote:Cut to the chase.

For you as I stated initially, this is all about religion.

But which one is my question?

Catholicism, perhaps.
Good guess!

Of course it is about religion, as religion is the study of consciousness.

Religion is simple not the study of consciousness in any sense I can think of. In fact it is more like the complete abrogation of any sort of study. Based on Faith, religion is about listening and being told how it is.
Theology might be deemed the study of gods consciousness, but the result contains precious little of value.

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:59 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:
thedoc wrote:Religion is based on faith in that which cannot be proven. Science is based on evidence that can be tested and proven. There is no real conflict, only the made up ones of small minds.
The conflict lies in the times when Faith has been used to do science.
When the Bishop of Durum declares that the storms are because god is angry with gays, for example.
Or when the Pope says that condoms cause AIDS.
Or when a Rabbi repeated gives baby boys Herpes, some dying of the infection, because he performs oral Bris.
That is grounds for lots of conflict, don't you think?

I would say that the examples you give and many more do not truly represent religion, even though those making the statments claim a basis in religion. Being religious will not protect some people from being stupid.
My own version of religion could be described as 'Cherry Picking' from Lutheranism and Buddhism, plus a few other odd influences along the way. Reading Joseph Campbell on Mythology has also colored my views on religion.

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:03 pm**

chaz wyman wrote: Religion is simple not the study of consciousness in any sense I can think of.

It could be described as the study of man's consciousness in relation to God's consciousness, among other things.

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:12 pm**

chaz wyman wrote: Based on Faith, religion is about listening and being told how it is.

This is one aspect that I have a bit of a problem with, if we accept that we are created by God, then why do we have the brain, mind, and the ability to think and reason. If we were not supposed to use them we should not have them and we could be just like every other animal in the woods. If we accept that God gave us our intelligence, then God gave it to us to use, and the nonsense that "Man's wisdom is Foolishness to God, and God's wisdom is foolishness to Man." is just so much nonsense, used to convince men to accept the foolish and sometimes stupid dictates and dogma of the curch.

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:25 pm**

thedoc wrote:
chaz wyman wrote: Religion is simple not the study of consciousness in any sense I can think of.

It could be described as the study of man's consciousness in relation to God's consciousness, among other things.

There are few religions indeed that encourage study of any kind - and none that I can think of that may defined as 'the study of ..." in any sense.

Maybe you have a few examples?

Posted: **Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:17 pm**

Chaz;

I am simply going to use a different color, rather than trying to break up all of the conversation. How about green?

Gee wrote:This is the reason that I prefer Socratic discussion to debate. In Socratic discussion one must actually listen to the other party and consider what is said; in debate one must analyze weak spots in an argument to undermine the other party's position.
Give me your best shot.
This will take some time for me to work up an explanation, so expect a response to this question later today or tomorrow.
I worked in law for years and am very familiar with debate. I find that debate is a wrestling match between parties where the biggest and the baddest wins--and truth loses. Socrates would never approve of this kind of nonsense in philosophy as he valued truth, but I also know that this concept is taught in universities and sold as worthy of philosophy.
Socrates would have made a first class lawyer. There is less difference than you think. Socrates usually left his interlocutors quivering jellies, having shot themselves in their own foot, under Socrates' gentle guidance.
Well, I won't argue with this. (chuckle) But I would remind you of how Socrates died. The Justice system does not care about virtue, as it is mostly about Civil Procedure. I think that Socrates would have made a good trial attorney, but an excellent Judge, Mediator, or law maker.

You need also to study evolution before you throw it out of the window as you have.
But what exactly do you think you have learned about consciousness that others have not?

What do you mean? I like evolution. I just don't think that the theory is complete. I think that consciousness is not reserved to the rational mind. It is much bigger a concept than most people think, and the ones who recognize this call it God.

Well I think trying to understand consciousness by objectifying it is like trying to study your telescope by looking through its own lens - you can only know what it does, but you cannot see how it works.
We study a lot of things that we can't see.
Have you ever tried to explain something that you recognize? It is very difficult. Try to pick out a person's face that you would recognize, then write the words that will explain what that person looks like so that when I read them, I will be able to pick out that person from a crowd. Then consider that I have preconceived ideas of what that person looks like, so I am not really listening to your words, and the difficult task becomes impossible!

Actually I try to do this very thing every time I try to get a likeness when I am making a sculpture of another persons face.
You can only ever end up with an impression; a sort of physical metaphor
Yes. I think that is why religions use metaphor so much, because they are trying to explain an impression or recognition. Good point.

Then problems arise because of the interpretations of the thing being explained and of the metaphor, which leads to misinformation.

If I do not know your position, the it is only because you have not stated it clearly enough - look to yourself before you insult others.
You are correct and I do apologize. It was not my intent to insult, but just to explain. On the other hand, statements like the one below do not help to clear up this matter.

I know what you are on about backwards, and forwards

Gee wrote:In the next post that you wrote to me was the following statement:
Chaz wrote:Theology might be deemed the study of gods consciousness, but the result contains precious little of value.
You are correct again in this statement. I should have used the word theology, and yes, there is precious little real information.
Gee

Philosophy Now Forum

Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!

Re: Time to say Hi!