Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:"Information" (and "informs") is another term that is used in a wide variety of often vague ways. So could you define how you're using that term first? I don't normally use it outside of contexts where it's the same as "data set out in some formal way that we can then process through some systematic means." "Knowledge informs" seems needlessly redundant to me again (that is, guessing what you probably have in mind by "informs"), but maybe you have something different in mind with "informs."

The person knows it's a person because knowledge has informed the person it is a person. Information is processed by the brain as knowledge.

The brain doesn't create the information, it processes the information that's passing through it...so where does the information that informs you are a person come from?

What happened to my request that you provide the definition of "information" that you're using?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:Who told you you are a person?

I'm not saying anything about people telling me that I'm a person. I have a concept of "person" that I've constructed, and I meet the criteria for it (via empirical observation).

That's in general how it's the case that any x is an F. Some person, S, formulates their concept, F, and a given x either meets the criteria for that concept or not. If the x fits, then they bestow the concept-term "F" upon the x.

If you were the only person in the whole universe...how would you know you are a person, where would that knowing come from?

So whether I'm the only person in the universe doesn't make a difference there, although maybe I'd name the concept differently.

Does a baby know it is a baby? ....

Depends on the baby in question, but as far as we can tell, it's unlikely until they've aged a bit and spent more time formulating concepts and so on.

Who is this I that formulates the concept of itself? .....can that one be known? and by what?

If not, all we are left with are concepts...concepts is knowledge.. Knowledge informs illusory reality.

Terrapin Station wrote:What happened to my request that you provide the definition of "information" that you're using?

Can ''information'' be defined without using concepts?

Dontaskme wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:What happened to my request that you provide the definition of "information" that you're using?

Can ''information'' be defined without using concepts?

No (at least not without that serving as a background for whoever is defining the term). Now, what is the definition you're using, please?

Aren't you trying to have a serious discussion? I can't answer questions you're asking employing the term "information" ("informs" and other permutations) unless I know what definition you're using. If you're not interested in a serious discussion though, that would be useful to know, too.

I would just answer using the relevant sense of "information" that I use in this milieu, as I've done with many other terms (and that I could define for you if you were unclear on how I'm using them), but I don't use "information" in this milieu really.

Oops--double posted.

Sorry--keep hitting "quote" instead of "edit"

Terrapin Station wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:What happened to my request that you provide the definition of "information" that you're using?

Can ''information'' be defined without using concepts?

No (at least not without that serving as a background for whoever is defining the term). Now, what is the definition you're using, please?

Aren't you trying to have a serious discussion? I can't answer questions you're asking employing the term "information" ("informs" and other permutations) unless I know what definition you're using. If you're not interested in a serious discussion though, that would be useful to know, too.

I would just answer using the relevant sense of "information" that I use in this milieu, as I've done with many other terms (and that I could define for you if you were unclear on how I'm using them), but I don't use "information" in this milieu really.

Thanks for the discussion. I'll be back tomorrow to reply to the above response. Have to go now.

Cool, talk to you tomorrow, Dontaskme.

Dontaskme wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:
Where in the person is the knowledge that is knows things located?

If you are sure the person knows things, where is that knowing located?

Brain states, as are all mental states.

Thanks...So the universe is a mental construction...mental as in relating to the mind.

Now..where is the mental mind located?

People run, they talk and they eat.

Where is the run located? Where is the talk located? and where the eating?

The mind is what the brain does. It's the activity of the brain.

God isn't one very impressive thing among many things that might or might not exist; “not just some especially resplendent object among all the objects illuminated by the light of being,” as Hart puts it. Rather, God is “the light of being itself',” the answer to the question of why there's existence to begin with. In other words, that wisecrack about how atheists merely believe in one less god than theists do, is just a category error. Monotheism's God isn't like one of the Greek gods except that he happens to have no god friends, but an utterly different kind of concept.

There are plenty of complaints (like the so-called problem of evil) and lots of ignorance posing as intelligible arguments (like the OP), but there are no real arguments against God's existence. To deny God, properly understood, is to entertain the ultimate absurdity as the ultimate truth. As Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart puts it: “When I say that atheism is a kind of obliviousness to the obvious, I mean that if one understands what the actual philosophical definition of 'God' is in most of the great religious traditions, and if consequently one understands what is logically entailed in denying that there is any God so defined, then one cannot reject the reality of God out court without embracing an ultimate absurdity.”

Reflex wrote: Rather, God is “the light of being itself',” the answer to the question of why there's existence to begin with.

And here is the jump to the conclusion. God is the full stop to inquiry of any kind. God did it. Don't bother to look further. Let us go back to the stone age when the brilliant guys wrote everything there is to know about God. They knew better.

Also denial of the existence of God is absurdity simply because God is a hypothesis. It is pointless to deny a hypothesis.

sthitapragya wrote:

Reflex wrote: Rather, God is “the light of being itself',” the answer to the question of why there's existence to begin with.

And here is the jump to the conclusion. God is the full stop to inquiry of any kind. God did it. Don't bother to look further. Let us go back to the stone age when the brilliant guys wrote everything there is to know about God. They knew better.

Also denial of the existence of God is pointless simply because God is a hypothesis. There really is no point in denying a hypothesis.

LOL! All sound and fury but no substance. All you're doing is proving the veracity of my post.

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Reflex wrote: Rather, God is “the light of being itself',” the answer to the question of why there's existence to begin with.

And here is the jump to the conclusion. God is the full stop to inquiry of any kind. God did it. Don't bother to look further. Let us go back to the stone age when the brilliant guys wrote everything there is to know about God. They knew better.

Also denial of the existence of God is pointless simply because God is a hypothesis. There really is no point in denying a hypothesis.

LOL! All sound and fury but no substance. All you're doing is proving the veracity of my post.

Your reply has no substance. The fact is you have no idea why everything exists and you cannot handle it. So God. You cannot deny that you jumped to a conclusion. Your post was just quotes of some guys who are not here for us to argue with them. You took what they said at face value as if what they said is law. That is just another form of superstition.

Reflex wrote: As Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart puts it: “When I say that atheism is a kind of obliviousness to the obvious, I mean that if one understands what the actual philosophical definition of 'God' is in most of the great religious traditions, and if consequently one understands what is logically entailed in denying that there is any God so defined, then one cannot reject the reality of God out court without embracing an ultimate absurdity.”

First of all, atheism is rejection of theism. There is no escaping theism. It is everywhere. Almost everyone I know was born a theist and raised a theist. They all had to reject God because of the inherent contradictions in God.

Your Bentley guy does not elaborate what he means when he says "what is logically entailed in denying that there is any God so defined." The reason is, he has never thought about it. Just like you. You guys do not have the courage to even try to imagine a world without God because you identify meaning and purpose to existence with the existence of God. So as soon as you try and imagine a world without God, you have to conclude that existence has no meaning an purpose. Which means your existence has no meaning and purpose. This frightens you. It hurt the ego. It is a pure psychological barrier and you are in denial of this fact.

Someone came up with the concept of God thousands of years ago. Till now, no one has been able to prove it. That is a hypothesis because it is not proved. You choose to believe in a hypothesis. The only way you can convince yourself against the absurdity of this is to put down others who refuse to accept a hypothesis without proof. some of you take it to the levels where you ask those who do not accept the hypothesis to prove the hypothesis wrong. This is just a sleight of hand. You know it. I know it. Anyone with any reasonable intelligence knows it. Yet you will deny it.

Reflex wrote:“When I say that atheism is a kind of obliviousness to the obvious, I mean that if one understands what the actual philosophical definition of 'God' is in most of the great religious traditions,

I just noticed the word play. See how beautifully he plays a trick? He does not say what the actual philosophical definition of God is. So it could literally be anything. If I refuse to accept one, he will say, "that is not what I meant by God." Have you noticed you do the same thing? You have not defined God. Ever. If you did, you would know if someone has an argument against it. But you won't. EVER. You know and I know that any intelligent person with time can understand the true definition of God in most of the great religions. IT is not rocket science.