PWQs

[Interesting Ian]

The denial of atheism and its associated family of beliefs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meaningless. Define atheism.

You can't define atheism? In that case how can you declare you are one?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope, can't define it. Never said I was one.

Atheism probably has something to do with god, so perhaps you could start by defining god. Are we getting circularly jiggy yet?

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Nope, can't define it. Never said I was one.

Atheism probably has something to do with god, so perhaps you could start by defining god. Are we getting circularly jiggy yet?

~~ Paul

Why do you want me to define God?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That's how we started earlier today. I asked for a metaphysical theory that logical positivism claims is meaningless, you said "God exists," and I replied "Meaningless. Define God." Then you defined it as "The denial of atheism and its associated family of beliefs." and I said "Meaningless. Define atheism" and here we are. It's a circle game.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

That's how we started earlier today. I asked for a metaphysical theory that logical positivism claims is meaningless, you said "God exists," and I replied "Meaningless. Define God." Then you defined it as "The denial of atheism and its associated family of beliefs." and I said "Meaningless. Define atheism" and here we are. It's a circle game.

~~ Paul

Even if the declaration that God exists were meaningless (which it certainly isn't), this doesn't mean to say that all metaphysical utterances are meaningless. Of course some metaphysical utterances are good candidates for being meaningless eg the Universe and everything within it is shrinking in a systematically uniform manner so that we could never in principle detect the shrinkage. Nevertheless even if we were to conclude that some metaphysical utterances such as this are meaningless, this does not at all imply that all metaphysical utterances are meaningless.

I do genuinely like my definition of God by the way. I also believe that "atheism and its associated family of beliefs" can be understood in a general way without using the term God or synonyms of God in our definiton. I could also provide a positive definition of God although this would be nowhere near as satisfactory as defining it as the denial of atheism and its associated family of beliefs (together with a suitable expansion of what this essentially means).

 

[Interesting Ian]

So if if inniating a change in A brings about some change in B then necessarily A not only causes B, but B must originate from A?

Are you sure you really wish to maintain this??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Are you still addict to strawmen II?.

I never have been. The accusation by materialists that I simply attack strawmen has no merit.

I will put the facts here:

1.- ECG and CAT show that mystical experiences by yogis and other mystics (excuse the redundance) are produced AFTER some changes in the electrical and chemical activity of the brain.

So certain brain states are necessary before one can have an appropriate mystical experience. How does this imply that such experiences are not real?

2.-Those changes, when replicated in test subjects using TMS show the same "god experience".
3.- Some subjects can trigger those changes at will, having the same experience.

Is it clear now? who produces the effect? God? The subject? The stimuli?

Perhaps God produces the effect but this effect is only realised in particular brain states.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So they believe the experience is genuine, that they truly experience God? This being so is it rational to suppose that the person who hasn't had such an experience will more correct in his opinion of the nature of this experience than those who have actually undergone the experience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



II, the experiments have been done also in mystics!. They report the same experience no matter the originIt's the real thing!.

I don't think you understood my question. What I'm asking is why your opinion about the reality of the experience, when you have never undergone one of these experiences, is more likely to be correct than a person who actually has undergone one of these experiences?

Allow me to illustrate this point with an analogy. Imagine 2 people, one of whom has consumed chocolate on many occasions and declares it to be delicious, the other person has never ever tasted chocolate and declares it to be horrible in taste. Who should we take more notice of? Surely the person who has consumed chocolate before! Thus why doesn't the same principle apply in the case of mystical experiences?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm not enough of a philosopher (what has philosophy done for me lately?) to have a strong opinion on the usefulness of metaphysics. However, most of the debates I read or participate in seem to involve poorly defined or circular terms. Hell, I don't even understand what ontology means.

"a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being"

What does that mean? What is being? And what does "relations of being" mean? You need two or more things to have relations.

I don't see how atheism can be any better defined than god or deity.

~~ Paul

 

[metacristi]

Originally posted by UCE

The Metamind is a higher mind, of which ours are derived. The noumenon (the physical world in its true form) exists within the metamind. It is supported by the Metamind. This scheme replaces a self-existing self-supporting material reality with information stored in a higher mental realm.

If I understood well the hypothesis you propose is a variant of Kant's 'string':mind-models of 'obective facts'-'objective facts' as perceived by our senses-noumenon [the 'thing in itself'].The noumenon in Kant's perspective is 'objective' in the materialistic sense,not directly connected with our minds,but his proposals could be interpreted in various modes:an ultimate reality as understood by actual materialism,a Platonic 'world of forms' which our minds directly access,a metamind,or simply a computer in who knows what transcedental reality,our world being a sort of virtual reality ['the Matrix hypothesis'].
Even if we reject materialism as we know today it is very difficult to make the difference between 'the metamind' hypothesis [a very old one-hinduism has this proposal from ancient times:we 'live' in the 'mind of God'] and 'the Matrix hypothesis' for example.
Frankly speaking the only way to 'confirm' 'the metamind' hypothesis is to access it directly,indeed if our consciusnessess do belong to that level then we should be able to do that.Generally this is considered as being 'non reliable' subjective 'evidence' by many scientists.But if a majority of perfectly healthy people,in controlled experiments,would report [repeatedly] the same things then we would have a strong,scientific,reason to believe it does exists [of course they must not know each other and moreover they must not know the goal of the experiment].
Unfortunately the 'near death experiences','out of body experiences' and so on are not reliable as they are not generally repetable and moreover they are compatible with explanations in the frame of usual materialism [release of endorfines in the case of NDE and so on].Mysticism also have the same shortcuts moreover its 'picture' of the ultimate reality is one of nondeterministic chaos,anyway not one which imply a [personal] Mind.
Also to confirm the 'Matrix hypothesis' we should be somehow capable to 'get out',a Morpheus and a 'red pill' would be needed...
Do you think that our science would be able to make the difference one day or,as some wise men from all religions have always said,only the moment of death could give us the answer...?

[Edited to add]:To confirm the existence of a metamind is enough what I said above but to have strong reasons to believe also in idealism the subjects involved in experiements should also 'see' directly that our 'reality' is a 'projection' of 'metamind'.

 

[Guest]

UCE,

I want to know:
Would the world perceived through PWQ follow always an internal logic?

Its 'normal' behaviour seems to follow an internal logic.

Woud the brain workings that we perceive though PWQ be an accurate projection of a mind?

There is a close correlation between the brain and the mind.

I don't know how else to answer the question.

 

[Guest]

If I understood well the hypothesis you propose is a variant of Kant's 'string':mind-models of 'obective facts'-'objective facts' as perceived by our senses-noumenon [the 'thing in itself'].The noumenon in Kant's perspective is 'objective' in the materialistic sense,not directly connected with our minds,but his proposals could be interpreted in various modes:an ultimate reality as understood by actual materialism,a Platonic 'world of forms' which our minds directly access,a metamind,or simply a computer in who knows what transcedental reality,our world being a sort of virtual reality ['the Matrix hypothesis'].
Even if we reject materialism as we know today it is very difficult to make the difference between 'the metamind' hypothesis [a very old one-hinduism has this proposal from ancient times:we 'live' in the 'mind of God'] and 'the Matrix hypothesis' for example.
Frankly speaking the only way to 'confirm' 'the metamind' hypothesis is to access it directly,indeed if our consciusnessess do belong to that level then we should be able to do that.Generally this is considered as being 'non reliable' subjective 'evidence' by many scientists.But if a majority of perfectly healthy people,in controlled experiments,would report [repeatedly] the same things then we would have a strong,scientific,reason to believe it does exists [of course they must not know each other and moreover they must not know the goal of the experiment].
Unfortunately the 'near death experiences','out of body experiences' and so on are not reliable as they are not generally repetable and moreover they are compatible with explanations in the frame of usual materialism [release of endorfines in the case of NDE and so on].Mysticism also have the same shortcuts moreover its 'picture' of the ultimate reality is one of nondeterministic chaos,anyway not one which imply a [personal] Mind.
Also to confirm the 'Matrix hypothesis' we should be somehow capable to 'get out',a Morpheus and a 'red pill' would be needed...
Do you think that our science would be able to make the difference one day or,as some wise men from all religions have always said,only the moment of death could give us the answer...?

[Edited to add]:To confirm the existence of a metamind is enough what I said above but to have strong reasons to believe also in idealism the subjects involved in experiements should also 'see' directly that our 'reality' is a 'projection' of 'metamind'.

There can be no objective verification. I believe there can be subjective verification by direct experience of it. I don't neccesarily even think it would be a good idea for science to verify it, even if it could.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ontology: a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being

E-prime definition, please.

~~ Paul

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I never have been. The accusation by materialists that I simply attack strawmen has no merit.

Then why you are acuusing me of the claim that I equate correlation to causation?

So certain brain states are necessary before one can have an appropriate mystical experience. How does this imply that such experiences are not real?

Who said that they are not real?

Perhaps God produces the effect but this effect is only realised in particular brain states.

If god produces it, then the TMS operator is god. Parsimony please.

I don't think you understood my question. What I'm asking is why your opinion about the reality of the experience, when you have never undergone one of these experiences, is more likely to be correct than a person who actually has undergone one of these experiences?

Well, I believe the claims of the people that have had both experiences.

Allow me to illustrate this point with an analogy. Imagine 2 people, one of whom has consumed chocolate on many occasions and declares it to be delicious, the other person has never ever tasted chocolate and declares it to be horrible in taste. Who should we take more notice of? Surely the person who has consumed chocolate before! Thus why doesn't the same principle apply in the case of mystical experiences?

That's why I told you that the experiment has also been run on mystics!

 

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by UCE

The Metamind is a higher mind, of which ours are derived. The noumenon (the physical world in its true form) exists within the metamind. It is supported by the Metamind. This scheme replaces a self-existing self-supporting material reality with information stored in a higher mental realm.

Let's be fair now

I think it should be more like:

This scheme replaces a self-existing self-supporting material reality with information stored in a self-existing self-supporting higher mental realm.

pointless jab removed

Adam

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I get the feeling that if we talk this out long enough, we will come to the conclusion

meta/mind = material reality

and thus demonstrate how this is just a giant definition-fest.

~~ Paul

 

[Guest]

Ontology: a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being

E-prime definition, please.

~~ Paul

Exactly.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Then why you are acuusing me of the claim that I equate correlation to causation?


Who said that they are not real?


If god produces it, then the TMS operator is god. Parsimony please.



Well, I believe the claims of the people that have had both experiences.


That's why I told you that the experiment has also been run on mystics!

Are we talking at cross purposes here or not? If the experiences are real then they do actually experience god. Otherwise these experiences are hallucinations. I thought you were disputing that these people were actually experiencing god?

 

[Peskanov]

UCE,

----
quote:
Its 'normal' behaviour seems to follow an internal logic.
[...]
There is a close correlation between the brain and the mind.
----

Thanks, I just wanted to know which level of "illusion" you attribute to PWQ. You know, there are people which is way more radical. For example: I remenber a person suggesting that scientists didn't studied or understood the brain: they just obtained (false) remenbering of doing so.

About what I said before about the information circuit:
Looking the brain like an I/O device, if you are able to follow the paths of all the information, you can say that the knowledge about this information circuit is "closed" despite not having the slightest idea of how the device works.
If we perceive through PWQ that a brain is a known system, and test it in real time, then what we are looking should be an accurate reflection of a mind.

Thinking about you model I concluded that in this system an spontaneus source of information should be observed in the brain, I thinked that the circuit couldn't be closed. That's wrong; I just messed myself! The circuit can be fully known as far as there is not information flowing from the metamind directly to the mind. If the metamind reads information from the mind, and produces fitting PWQ for it, there is no problem at all.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Are we talking at cross purposes here or not? If the experiences are real then they do actually experience god. Otherwise these experiences are hallucinations. I thought you were disputing that these people were actually experiencing god?

Right, they have a real experience wich feels like they are in presence of god. The fact that there is no god involved doesn't invalidate the reality of the experience.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Right, they have a real experience wich feels like they are in presence of god. The fact that there is no god involved doesn't invalidate the reality of the experience.

But why don't you think they are genuinely experiencing God?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

But why don't you think they are genuinely experiencing God?

Because of parsimony.

1.- ECG and CAT show that mystical experiences by yogis and other mystics (excuse the redundance) are produced AFTER some changes in the electrical and chemical activity of the brain.
2.-Those changes, when replicated in test subjects using TMS show the same "god experience".
3.- Some subjects can trigger those changes at will, having the same experience.

To produce the experience ther was no necessity of introducing any god, so the existence of this entity can be ruled out in this experiment thanks to Occam.