'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[Phanerothyme]

We should get together at some point Waldo, there's lots to not talk about!

[Gormenghast]

Atheist do bother me because I think they are a harmful influence on society.

 

Hi Grahame. How's things?

 

I think you meant Atheists

 

Is there any peer reviewed research that shows how many atheists are paedophiles, compared to how many of the clergy are, allegedly? And how dangerous these atheists are are to society?

[Waldo]

We should get together at some point Waldo, there's lots to not talk about!

 

Sounds like a good plan.

[Grahame]

Hi Grahame. How's things?

 

I think you meant Atheists

 

Is there any peer reviewed research that shows how many atheists are paedophiles, compared to how many of the clergy are, allegedly? And how dangerous these atheists are are to society?

 

Criminals applying for jobs in schools: Paedophiles among 7,000 trying to work with children

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153442/Criminals-applying-jobs-schools-Paedophiles-7-000-trying-work-children.html#ixzz14GBda8cp

 

 

 

Back on topic please.

[Wildcat]

I don't. How does what I've just said contradict it?

 

You did talk about the leap of faith out of solipsism as being a pragmatic choice earlier. Now in the post being quoted you are admitting that as a child such a choice would be beyond them.

 

No my mind does not operate on a different level. I am absolutely not talking about my mind as if its more than the sum of it's parts. To me when someone says 'more than the sum of its parts' they mean 'not fully understood'. I'm perfectly happy to use I as a clumsy imprecise word to refer to myself, by which I do mean a slab of meat and chemicals sat in front of a lump of a general-purpose programmable machine that receives input, stores and manipulates data, and provides output in a useful format. whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user with no intervening computer operator*. The concept of 'me' or 'I' is extremely complex and I is just a shorthand. There's nothing 'beyond physical' about it.

 

When you talk about a computer do you not call it a general-purpose programmable machine that receives input, stores and manipulates data, and provides output in a useful format. whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user with no intervening computer operator *?

 

No you just call it a computer or a PC. Does that somehow magically mean that it is more than the sum of its parts? No, and nor does it mean that when I say 'I'.

 

*taken from wiki's 'PC' and 'computer' pages.

 

But they are more than the sum of their parts, just as a hive is more than a collection of bees, or a portuguese man-o-war is more than a colony of assorted organisms.

 

It is just the same with humans: words and concepts affect us in ways that cannot be derived from simply looking at us as a combination of cells, nervous system etc. The reason being there is emergent behaviour, behaviour that can be explained as being a product of chaotic iterative physics, but that because of the nature of the underlying mathematics remains unpredictable, at that level.

 

Which is why we don't think of ourselves in terms of physics or chemistry when discussing such things, it is generally not useful and doesn't work. We describe our emotions and experiences on a different level of understanding to physics, we use a biological type of language. We can talk about Egos and Ids, Jungian archetypes or we simply use everyday language like pain, distress etc, and we use metaphysical concepts like Self.

 

Sure there are types of behaviour that can be predicted as a result of certain types of damage, chemical or genetic deficiencies and we can produce pharmaceuticals to treat them but our understanding doesn't derive from first principles, from physics, it derives from experimental observations of the impacts of chemistry on these higher level concepts, our biological and metaphysical language of metaphors.

 

The language of art, of aesthetics of spirituality is every bit as meaningful as the language of physics. We understand ourselves through the interaction of these levels of understanding a sort of microcosm and macrocosm.

[flamingjimmy]

You did talk about the leap of faith out of solipsism as being a pragmatic choice earlier. Now in the post being quoted you are admitting that as a child such a choice would be beyond them.

Firstly, I was only speculating, I don't know how infants think. To be honest I don't think they'd make a pragmatic choice to believe that the external world is real, nor do I think they'd be able to grasp any metaphysical concepts either. I think they'd probably make the leap of faith without thinking about it, bu again this is just speculation. How does that contradict what I said earlier and what bearing do you think it has on the discussion at hand?

 

But they are more than the sum of their parts, just as a hive is more than a collection of bees, or a portuguese man-o-war is more than a colony of assorted organisms.

I disagree on all three counts, they absolutely aren't more than the sum of their parts, nothing is. 'More than the sum of their parts' is just a metaphor, useful for communication but never actually literally true. All it really means is 'this is awesome but I don't know exactly why'.

 

It is just the same with humans: words and concepts affect us in ways that cannot be derived from simply looking at us as a combination of cells, nervous system etc. The reason being there is emergent behaviour, behaviour that can be explained as being a product of chaotic iterative physics, but that because of the nature of the underlying mathematics remains unpredictable, at that level.

Unpredictable does not mean magical. It just means unpredictable.

 

Which is why we don't think of ourselves in terms of physics or chemistry when discussing such things, it is generally not useful and doesn't work. We describe our emotions and experiences on a different level of understanding to physics, we use a biological type of language. We can talk about Egos and Ids, Jungian archetypes or we simply use everyday language like pain, distress etc, and we use metaphysical concepts like Self.

These concepts to me are not metaphysical, and it makes no difference to my understanding of language when you say things like 'self' or 'I' or even 'more than the sum of its parts'. I know exactly what you mean, and I don't need to believe in anything other than the physical world to do so.

 

Sure there are types of behaviour that can be predicted as a result of certain types of damage, chemical or genetic deficiencies and we can produce pharmaceuticals to treat them but our understanding doesn't derive from first principles, from physics it derives from experimental observations of the impacts of chemistry on these higher level concepts, our biological and metaphysical language of metaphors.

Just because something is too complicated for us to understand does not mean it is not just a physical process.

[Grahame]

Firstly, I was only speculating, I don't know how infants think. To be honest I don't think they'd make a pragmatic choice to believe that the external world is real, nor do I think they'd be able to grasp any metaphysical concepts either. I think they'd probably make the leap of faith without thinking about it, bu again this is just speculation. How does that contradict what I said earlier and what bearing do you think it has on the discussion at hand?

 

I disagree on all three counts, they absolutely aren't more than the sum of their parts, nothing is. 'More than the sum of their parts' is just a metaphor, useful for communication but never actually literally true. All it really means is 'this is awesome but I don't know exactly why'.

 

Unpredictable does not mean magical. It just means unpredictable.

 

These concepts to me are not metaphysical, and it makes no difference to my understanding of language when you say things like 'self' or 'I' or even 'more than the sum of its parts'. I know exactly what you mean, and I don't need to believe in anything other than the physical world to do so.

 

Just because something is too complicated for us to understand does not mean it is not just a physical process.

Believing is a physical process.

 

Wildcat spoke about self awareness as a baby which takes a little time to happen. Then comes adolescence and sexual awareness that takes a few years longer and then comes spiritual awareness which can come early on for some people while others never gain spiritual maturity.

 

 

[Wildcat]

Firstly, I was only speculating, I don't know how infants think. To be honest I don't think they'd make a pragmatic choice to believe that the external world is real, nor do I think they'd be able to grasp any metaphysical concepts either. I think they'd probably make the leap of faith without thinking about it, bu again this is just speculation. How does that contradict what I said earlier and what bearing do you think it has on the discussion at hand?

 

My point is that our conception of reality fundamentally can not be derived purely from a rational logical organisation of our sensory experiences.

 

I disagree on all three counts, they absolutely aren't more than the sum of their parts, nothing is. 'More than the sum of their parts' is just a metaphor, useful for communication but never actually literally true. All it really means is 'this is awesome but I don't know exactly why'.

 

Unpredictable does not mean magical. It just means unpredictable.

 

These concepts to me are not metaphysical, and it makes no difference to my understanding of language when you say things like 'self' or 'I' or even 'more than the sum of its parts'. I know exactly what you mean, and I don't need to believe in anything other than the physical world to do so.

 

Just because something is too complicated for us to understand does not mean it is not just a physical process.

 

I have through emergence and the chaotic mathematics of iterations explained how such higher levels concepts can be explained through our most basic understanding of the physical. However I have also shown that a large number of those concepts are not derived from there. It is in the formulation of those concepts that there is room for the spiritual for the religious, for the aesthetic , for the emotive language we understand and can meaningfully use to communicate.

 

You are welcome like I do to say God does not exist, but it is something we will never be able to prove. We also cannot say that religious language is meaningless to religious people that use it, they communicate and understand things on that level and it makes sense to them. It is arrogance to deny them the meaning it is apparent they derive from such language. We simply can't do so with any superiority because there is space with in our shared conceptualisation of reality for the religious.

 

I am not seeking to prove the religious, such an argument would be self defeating, it would remove faith. What I am arguing is that whilst a religious interpretation of the world can be seen as optional it is not meaningless and cannot simply be dismissed as inconsistent, or illogical (at its most fundamental mystical level) and cannot be disproved.

[Plain Talker]

Believing is a physical process.

 

Wildcat spoke about self awareness as a baby which takes a little time to happen. Then comes adolescence and sexual awareness that takes a few years longer and then comes spiritual awareness which can come early on for some people while others never gain spiritual maturity.

 

Belief is not a physical process but a mental one.

[flamingjimmy]

Belief is not a physical process but a mental one.

 

Mental processes are physical.