• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What actually do JREF religious believers believe?

punshhh said:
I regard the content of the subjective a substance too.
Click to expand...


Ah. Well, it appears we disagree on that. I regard the content of the subjective, like the content of a book, map, photograph, DNA sequence, mathematical theorem, cellular automaton, logic circuit, or operating computer, as pattern rather than substance.

I don't see much value in hypothesizing an undiscovered substance to account for phenomena that are already accounted for by pattern. Besides being redundant, that seems likely to invite category errors, such as the idea of sleeping with ones head on a book so as to absorb the "substance" of the book's knowledge without the inconvenience of actually reading it.

People have always been reluctant to appreciate the power of pattern, though, so you're in good company. Probably that's been true since the first pictures or the first language, whichever came first. A primitive human might very well think: how can the spoken word "deer" (a mere sound) or a painting of a deer (mere greasy soot on stone) cause me to think about a deer in much the same way that seeing an actual deer does? There must be something of the substance of a deer captured in the word or in the paint. Which becomes the basis for all kinds of magical practices (basically, all sympathetic magic) all based on the category error.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Good post, Myriad. Too bad all that will go right over punshhh's head.
 
laca said:
Good post, Myriad. Too bad all that will go right over punshhh's head.
Click to expand...


I don't think it will. I don't expect punshhh to agree (given that the whole post is me telling him "here's where I disagree with you and why") but he hasn't seemed to have much trouble understanding me before. Of course, if I've been unclear, I hope he asks me to clarify.

Clarity =/= persuasion; comprehension =/= agreement.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
I don't think it will. I don't expect punshhh to agree (given that the whole post is me telling him "here's where I disagree with you and why") but he hasn't seemed to have much trouble understanding me before. Of course, if I've been unclear, I hope he asks me to clarify.

Clarity =/= persuasion; comprehension =/= agreement.
Click to expand...

Yes, but clarity should mean comprehension, given that the subject does not require too much specialized knowledge. That is painfully not the case with punshhh.
 
Myriad said:
Ah. Well, it appears we disagree on that. I regard the content of the subjective, like the content of a book, map, photograph, DNA sequence, mathematical theorem, cellular automaton, logic circuit, or operating computer, as pattern rather than substance.

I don't see much value in hypothesizing an undiscovered substance to account for phenomena that are already accounted for by pattern. Besides being redundant, that seems likely to invite category errors, such as the idea of sleeping with ones head on a book so as to absorb the "substance" of the book's knowledge without the inconvenience of actually reading it.

People have always been reluctant to appreciate the power of pattern, though, so you're in good company. Probably that's been true since the first pictures or the first language, whichever came first. A primitive human might very well think: how can the spoken word "deer" (a mere sound) or a painting of a deer (mere greasy soot on stone) cause me to think about a deer in much the same way that seeing an actual deer does? There must be something of the substance of a deer captured in the word or in the paint. Which becomes the basis for all kinds of magical practices (basically, all sympathetic magic) all based on the category error.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I am aware of the process of the "emergence" of patterns in nature and the way they have been exploited in the rat race of evolution. Thus the compelling power you refer to.

When I refer to the content of the subjective I am pointing specifically to the being who reads or observes the subjective experience. The substance is the conceptual building blocks generated and choreographed by this being in the process of the mind.

So I am saying that the concepts generated in the mind are a substance through which the being interacts with the world.

I appreciate that this process can in theory be modeled as the storage and processing of patterns in the brain. However while I appreciate this I also consider the potential for a science of mind in which the material is personal concepts.
 
punshhh said:
I am aware of the process of the "emergence" of patterns in nature and the way they have been exploited in the rat race of evolution. Thus the compelling power you refer to.
Click to expand...

Evolution is not a race, rat or any other kind. There is no finishing line.
 
dafydd said:
So much for mysticism then.
Click to expand...

Mysticism is a dead end. Once you agree there's some unknown essence underlining existence how can you investigate it in an objective manner? Having throw out the tools of science the mystics are left with nothing but the way of the woo. Mountains of evidence that the world actually works the way science says it does are thrown out to door while anecdotal anthills are built to prove we really know nothing. Then the same ones who say we know nothing claim to know everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom