Either there is a God, or there isn't.

[Sidhe]

I've always thought that what people mean by God is perfection.

Carefull Perfection is so vain he might take it your talking about him j/k

 

[Kilroy]

I'm in a tentative agreement with you on the hard problem, I'm not sure we could ever solve it, I think an alien race might be able to do it objectively though.

I'm speaking of directly experiencing another sentient being's consciousness, which as far as I can tell is impossible to do without, at the very least, losing all your memories and gaining all of someone else's. Even then you couldn't be sure, because how are you going to check your simulation's accuracy?

Whether it's an alien race has nothing to do with it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What I was saying was that the claim (perf's suggestion) that rationality dominates human behavior is probalby wrong and to look at life as if it does is a misguided notion that neglects most of the way people actually behave. Our actions speak louder than our words. To fully understand who we are and why we do things, we have to embrace the irrational and blindly emotional too. (Not just study it.)

My point was that irrationality is such a large part of human life that to claim observation and reasoned thought has all the answers is a mistake. Experiential "learning" that is not quantifiable or replicable is a valid path to truth.

Can you fully understand sex (and the sex drive) if you have never had sex?
Can you understand another culture if you only observe it and never participate in it?
Can you effectively teach parenting if you have never been a parent?
No, no and no again.

I don't think any of those behaviours is necessarily irrational.

You are correct. Upon re-reading my earlier post I think I was mixing two ideas. I am trying to to make two points with all this. One is that knowledge is not limited to "scientific knowledge" and that "experiential knowledge" has real value also. The second point is that irrationality is an important aspect of human behavior and to assume or expect that rational behvior is or should be the norm will lead one to false conclusions. I think that the single bigest determinant of behavior is individual selfishness that can manifest itself through both thoughtful and impulsive irrational acts.

Experience has killed all faith (in the religious/mystic sense) I ever had.

Experience is a two edged sword and I'm sure that as many people have been turned off to faith as have been turned on to it because of their experiences with religion. I would contend that Truth is all around everyday and all paths take us there. Some may be faster than others, but all/any will get you there.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Observation and rationality do have all the "answers," however, if you're interested in predicting events. That is, while I may not know what it's like to walk a mile in your shoes, I can, with enough information, make reliable predictions of your behavior. I can even map the chemical reactions in your brain that are causing you to say the things you do and make the decisions you do. To actually experience what you experience, however, is of course impossible. I'm not you, and I can never "take over" your sentience or anything like that.

Being able to predict behavior through observation and rational thought is useful in manipulating materials and making cool stuff for humans to use. To a lesser degree it has helped us understand some of our craziness and afflictions, but it has done very little to change "normal" human behavior for the better. Unless you consider turning generations of kids into couch potato sports video game junkies a some sort of progress.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Dangerous argument, it has merits but Rasputin said "one cannot speak of sin unless one has sinned" it's an immoral advocation, I wouldn't tell anyone who spoke out against something they hadn't practiced, to go find out about the sin first by indulging it

As you say though experience is a good guide, I would rather not experience anything of suffering though or imorality if I can help it, neither has any merit if they can be avoided.

See my reply to TLC.

 

[Kilroy]

Being able to predict behavior through observation and rational thought is useful in manipulating materials and making cool stuff for humans to use. To a lesser degree it has helped us understand some of our craziness and afflictions, but it has done very little to change "normal" human behavior for the better. Unless you consider turning generations of kids into couch potato sports video game junkies a some sort of progress.

But it's the search for truth we're concerned with. As near as I can tell the only "truth" worth knowing is that truth which has a tangible effect on one's environment. Otherwise, why should anybody care? You said:

Can you fully understand sex (and the sex drive) if you have never had sex?
Can you understand another culture if you only observe it and never participate in it?
Can you effectively teach parenting if you have never been a parent?

And gave a negative answer to all three. I totally disagree, and would answer in the affirmative for every one of those questions.

If you fully understand human biology you can make 100% accurate predictions of human sexual behavior. Ergo, you understand human sexuality completely. Actually having sex is irrelevant.

And so on for the other two.

Now, for the most part having direct experience with things helps in our understanding of them. But, that's a just a quirk of how humans learn; experience isn't necessary, just convenient for us.

 

[Boris Godunov]

Unless someone can provide me with some empiric evidence, I'm in the "don't believe in god" camp.

There is no imperical [sic] evidence to support the (non)existence of a God.

There doesn't have to be. There's no empiric evidence to support the (non)existence of leprechauns. Does that make belief in them just as rational as non-belief?

Belief in god is a positive statement as to existence of a supernatural entity. We currently have no empiric proof that anything supernatural even exists, much less some omnipotent entity. Everyone's natural default assumption in the world, whether they admit it or not, is one of skepticism towards things unseen and unproven. For some reason, however, most people want to give a pass to deities in this regard. Whatever suits them, I guess.

As for morality, it's derived from humans, since morality is purely a human concept. As far as we're able to determine, human beings are the only sentient beings and the only ones with a moral code, ergo it's one of our inventions. Not a hard concept.

 

[C~G]

There is no God. There's really never been. Meaning outside of our mind.
It is just our whimsical wishes and imagination that creates such vision.
Between us and eternity there isn't any greater power.

But sometimes I'm tempted to belief otherwise.
Still I cannot do so.
Simply empirical evidence thus far shows otherwise.
Also according to my system of belief based into my personal experiences I would shun away from the light of God anyway, such habits he would seem to have.

Either God doesn't exist or does but isn't worthy of my attention and recognition.
I guess that makes me indifferent.

Let the sleeping Gods lie. We don't need them.

 

[Sidhe]

The worst type of hypocrit is a Christian/Muslim/Jew or other who starts wars for reasons other than self defense or for some sort of cause that is moral, there should be no need to do this in modern times but it happens anyway. No matter how many times you read the admonishments against violence and war in the Bible/Koran or wherever you can't help but wonder if these sort of religious followers are simply iliterate or just plain ********?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

I generally operate under the rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore suggesting that there is an all powerful being and then offering zero evidence other than an ancient book of fiction and hearsay is about the dumbest thing I've ever been asked to consider.

 

[Atropos]

Irrelevant question. You need to define "God."

In many traditional societies, people believed that the soul is the breath. We know that breath exists and is chemically different from other air. Does that mean that we've proven the existence of the soul?

 

[Birdjaguar]

But it's the search for truth we're concerned with. As near as I can tell the only "truth" worth knowing is that truth which has a tangible effect on one's environment. Otherwise, why should anybody care?

Contrary to your thinking, people do care. They care about about a lot of "pointless" stuff. The illogical and the irrational are important to most people and your very narrow definition of what is "valuable" runs against the current of real life human behavior. If your pov about truth was one shared by most humans, we wouldn't have religion, but clearly we do; good luck in persuading the rest of us to see things your way.

You said:

Can you fully understand sex (and the sex drive) if you have never had sex?
Can you understand another culture if you only observe it and never participate in it?
Can you effectively teach parenting if you have never been a parent?

And gave a negative answer to all three. I totally disagree, and would answer in the affirmative for every one of those questions.

I don't know any way to respond to this other than to say you are just wrong. There was a time many years ago when I would have agreed with you, but over the years I've come to realize that "intellectual" knowledge only gets you so far. Depth of understanding only comes from experience.

If you fully understand human biology you can make 100% accurate predictions of human sexual behavior. Ergo, you understand human sexuality completely. Actually having sex is irrelevant.

100% accurate predictions about human sexual behavior? Not a chance. From such a statement, I would encourage you to get additional experience in this area.

EDITTED ^: at C~G's suggestion

Now, for the most part having direct experience with things helps in our understanding of them. But, that's a just a quirk of how humans learn; experience isn't necessary, just convenient for us.

Yes it is a quirk that we've "endured" for 7MM years and two years of college psychology or anthropology convinces you that it is no longer needed? And your new paradigm is that all worthwhile knowledge can be learned from a book or computer screen? BTW, how did you manage to survive up to age six? Was that learning an uncecessary quirk that we should replace with TV?

 

[C~G]

I don't know any way to respond to this other than to say you are just wrong. There was a time many years ago when I would have agreed with you, but over the years I've come to realize that "intellectual" knowledge only gets you so far. Depth of understanding only comes from experience.

I could point out that experience is only subjective method of understanding. People see same things in different light. Intellectual knowledge tries to combine these things into such package that everyone with or without experience may understand, usually failing in it's task miserably. Mainly this is because it tries to find a medium experience from simple facts while humans experiences are quite often focused into irrational.

100% accurate predictions about human sexual behavior? Not a chance.

Partly he is right. You can predict certain things about human sexual behaviour without having sex yourself. It doesn't mean those are the important parts but just the most obvious.

Just gathering different kind of experiences doesn't give you wisdom, it's only vision you create from those experiences that create wisdom, but it might prove you wrong one day, giving even more precious knowledge about the world. It's not the experience or the logic but the continuing introspection that makes us dream about God.

EDIT: Birdjaguar

 

[Birdjaguar]

No need to get personal with possible amount of Kilroy's experiences.

I edited my post.

Partly he is right. You can predict certain things about human sexual behaviour without having sex yourself. It doesn't mean those are the important parts but just the most obvious.

You are correct. Kilroy has assumed a pretty extreme position at one end of a continuum.

Just gathering different kind of experiences doesn't give you wisdom, it's only vision you create from those experiences that create wisdom, but it might prove you wrong one day, giving even more precious knowledge about the world. It's not the experience or the logic but the continuing introspection that makes us dream about God.

 

[Sidhe]

Irrelevant question. You need to define "God."

In many traditional societies, people believed that the soul is the breath. We know that breath exists and is chemically different from other air. Does that mean that we've proven the existence of the soul?

Well exactly the only thing breathing prooves is that inspiration and expiration exist

This is an example where superstition and religous hocus pocus leads us to make irrational hypotheses. If you find God with experience and introspection then it wont be or shouldn't be because of scripture, or some odd notions.

 

[Kilroy]

Contrary to your thinking, people do care. They care about about a lot of "pointless" stuff. The illogical and the irrational are important to most people and your very narrow definition of what is "valuable" runs against the current of real life human behavior. If your pov about truth was one shared by most humans, we wouldn't have religion, but clearly we do; good luck in persuading the rest of us to see things your way.

Whether most people share my "POV" about truth is irrelevant. It has no effect on whether or not it is truth. If you want to discuss the pursuit of truth, we can do that; if you just want to hold popularity contests then I'm not interested.

I don't know any way to respond to this other than to say you are just wrong. There was a time many years ago when I would have agreed with you, but over the years I've come to realize that "intellectual" knowledge only gets you so far. Depth of understanding only comes from experience.

Get back to me when your depth of understanding constitutes a reliable model of the physical universe capable of providing concrete, testable, and accurate predictions 100% of the time.

100% accurate predictions about human sexual behavior? Not a chance. From such a statement, I would encourage you to get additional experience in this area.

EDITTED ^: at C~G's suggestion

I wouldn't worry about my experience chief, nor do I need any encouragement to get more of it. But that has nothing to do with my argument. Can I assume, since you've started in with the ad homs, that you've nothing with which to rebut my argument, and that you concede the point?

Yes it is a quirk that we've "endured" for 7MM years and two years of college psychology or anthropology convinces you that it is no longer needed? And your new paradigm is that all worthwhile knowledge can be learned from a book or computer screen? BTW, how did you manage to survive up to age six? Was that learning an uncecessary quirk that we should replace with TV?

This is a pretty terrible strawman. And more ad homs at the end of it as well. I'm not interested in arguing with you if all you're going to do is put words in my mouth and attack me personally rather than my argument. Anyhow, I never said we ought to change the way we learn, or that "book learnin'" is somehow the superior method. I was merely pointing out for you how people learn and what the consequences of that are to our perceptions.

 

[Kilroy]

Partly he is right. You can predict certain things about human sexual behaviour without having sex yourself. It doesn't mean those are the important parts but just the most obvious.

I'm curious, could you give me an example of a facet of human sexual behavior that you don't think could be reliably modeled, if one had a complete understanding of human biology?

 

[C~G]

I'm curious, could you give me an example of a facet of human sexual behavior that you don't think could be reliably modeled, if one had a complete understanding of human biology?

This is so much OT that I might get driven of the thread but I want to give answer for some reason.

It has to do with such things as "emotions" and "memories" which stem from our experiences.
Knowing biology is winning only half of the battle, rest of it, psychological aspects that are within human brain is the real uphill battle.
I would call it Waterloo for now.

We all are wired, connected, configurated and programmed differently.

You might know the biomechanics of sex but somehow it gets quite complicated after a while. Reason why it happens, is because we start to fantasize and play with the thoughts of it. It's called imagination. And we relate our ego to it. We start to identify ourselves with it in order to adapt it to our lives. This is where it starts to get complicated. It isn't anymore single issue that can be done in test laboratory because it's the conditions of our life that we try to adapt into. This creates new pattern of thought and model of behaviour which again must be modeled. Our identification process, in which we relate different things to ego isn't anything but greatest adaptation method of all time.

So once you have modeled the biological part and then transmitted one person's experiences of his/her lifetime into that model which has cabability identify itself and adapt to the conditions of simulation automatically, you might get some kind of view of complete human sexuality.

Good night, and good luck with that one.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This was your original point. Bolding mine.

Observation and rationality do have all the "answers," however, if you're interested in predicting events. That is, while I may not know what it's like to walk a mile in your shoes, I can, with enough information, make reliable predictions of your behavior. I can even map the chemical reactions in your brain that are causing you to say the things you do and make the decisions you do. To actually experience what you experience, however, is of course impossible. I'm not you, and I can never "take over" your sentience or anything like that.

Followed by:

But it's the search for truth we're concerned with. As near as I can tell the only "truth" worth knowing is that truth which has a tangible effect on one's environment. Otherwise, why should anybody care? You said:

If you fully understand human biology you can make 100% accurate predictions of human sexual behavior. Ergo, you understand human sexuality completely. Actually having sex is irrelevant.

Now, for the most part having direct experience with things helps in our understanding of them. But, that's a just a quirk of how humans learn; experience isn't necessary, just convenient for us.

What is most interesting to a non scientist like me, is that none of your statements about what is true are true. None can be shown to be true using the scientific mehtod you keep talking about. I've listed some of your key points in bold below and added my comments in plain text after.

Observation and rationality do have all the answers. Do I need to make a list of questions about humans or the physical world that have not been answered by science?
With enough information you can make reliable predictions of my behavior. This only holds true in the narrowest sense of things. Things like I will eat and speak today. To capture all the information you need to truly predict my behavior, you would have to confine me in a controlled environment and thereby limit my choices to things you could monitor and record. Without such restrictions, you cannot collect the data you need. In such a process you would destroy the very subject you were trying to model. Rats might put up with it.

I can even map the chemical reactions in your brain that are causing you to say the things you do and make the decisions you doInteresting. Please post a link to the study that shows which chemical reactions are determining what ordinary people say and the decisons they make in everyday life. I fully accept that you can map my brain to see what what happens when I'm doing things, but I am unfamiliar with any research that shows chemical reactions causing ordinary people to make specific decisions.

the only "truth" worth knowing is that truth which has a tangible effect on one's environmentYou are entitled to your opinion.

If you fully understand human biology you can make 100% accurate predictions of human sexual behavior. Ergo, you understand human sexuality completely.Given the fact that we are a long way from fully understanding human biology, this statement is means nothing. You are hypothesizing that one day we will have such an understanding and when that happens we will be able to predict with 100% reliability. It is not a very scientific statement, again just opinion. You add another unfounded gratuity at the end with that bit about understanding sexuality. You assume biology = sexuality and that there are not other components involved. Wishful thinking perhaps. Do you have any proof? Could culture play some small role in our sexuality?

experience isn't necessary, just convenient for us.Experience is the foundation of the scienfitic method and reasoning. That is how it all got started. You seem to think that living can be reduced to some sort of recipe that once put on paper anyone can read it and get a life. Actual observations in the real world show this to be bogus. Can you post an example of a typical human activity that can be mastered without any experience? If you knew anything about child rearing during the first six years of life you would not have made such a statement.

Get back to me when your depth of understanding constitutes a reliable model of the physical universe capable of providing concrete, testable, and accurate predictions 100% of the time.

I could ask the same of you. My model of the universe does not limit itself to what can be wrung out of the scientific method. I pretty much accept what science presents as its little truths, but I realize that science has not told the whole story and is not likely to ever do so.

I'm not interested in arguing with you if all you're going to do is put words in my mouth and attack me personally rather than my argument.

To avoid that I've tried to only quote you in this post.

Anyhow, I never said we ought to change the way we learn, or that "book learnin'" is somehow the superior method. I was merely pointing out for you how people learn and what the consequences of that are to our perceptions.

What you said was

Now, for the most part having direct experience with things helps in our understanding of them. But, that's a just a quirk of how humans learn; experience isn't necessary, just convenient for us.

That "quirk" of human learning is millions of years old and it is what got us to whsere we are today. I am surprised you are so casual about tossing it aside as unnecessary. As I have said before, it is necessary. We cannot function as people without experiential learning.

 

[Kilroy]

With enough information you can make reliable predictions of my behavior. This only holds true in the narrowest sense of things. Things like I will eat and speak today. To capture all the information you need to truly predict my behavior, you would have to confine me in a controlled environment and thereby limit my choices to things you could monitor and record. Without such restrictions, you cannot collect the data you need. In such a process you would destroy the very subject you were trying to model. Rats might put up with it.

If you fully understand human biology you can make 100% accurate predictions of human sexual behavior. Ergo, you understand human sexuality completely.Given the fact that we are a long way from fully understanding human biology, this statement is means nothing. You are hypothesizing that one day we will have such an understanding and when that happens we will be able to predict with 100% reliability. It is not a very scientific statement, again just opinion.

Well, with modern technology I couldn't even do that. The human brain can be mapped using non-invasive techniques to an accuracy of a single neuron, but not in real time. Moreover, we certainly don't know what each individual neuron is actually doing, and neither can we accurately map the connections between each neuron nor intercept their communications. So, present-day technology is still a long, long way from surreptitiously mapping your brain and predicting your subsequent behavior. However, it is in theory possible.

I wasn't referring to present-day technology in any of my above posts, sorry if that was the impression.

I can even map the chemical reactions in your brain that are causing you to say the things you do and make the decisions you doInteresting. Please post a link to the study that shows which chemical reactions are determining what ordinary people say and the decisons they make in everyday life. I fully accept that you can map my brain to see what what happens when I'm doing things, but I am unfamiliar with any research that shows chemical reactions causing ordinary people to make specific decisions.

You aren't familar with neuroscience at all then. The neural network that is your brain sends signals from one node to the other via chemical reactions across the synapses that connect your brain cells to one another. That is how the brain functions at the most basic level, and there is no indication that there is anything more to it than that. Belief in something like a soul which "guides" the functioning of the brain must be sustained entirely on faith.

You can do your own research though. That's what Google and Wikis are for. You're asking me to link you to the entirety of neurobiology.

You add another unfounded gratuity at the end with that bit about understanding sexuality. You assume biology = sexuality and that there are not other components involved. Wishful thinking perhaps. Do you have any proof? Could culture play some small role in our sexuality?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Culture shapes and is shaped by biological processes. If I can map a human brain and reproduce a model of it, using that model to make predictions, then any influence culture has had upon that brain will necessarily affect my model all the same.

experience isn't necessary, just convenient for us.Experience is the foundation of the scienfitic method and reasoning. That is how it all got started. You seem to think that living can be reduced to some sort of recipe that once put on paper anyone can read it and get a life. Actual observations in the real world show this to be bogus. Can you post an example of a typical human activity that can be mastered without any experience? If you knew anything about child rearing during the first six years of life you would not have made such a statement.

Again, this is merely due to the way humans obtain, store, and process information. That is the way we are and the way we learn, but that does not mean this is the only way to learn how to do something. Yes, you could program a robot to properly raise children. You could do it so well that the children would not even know it is a robot raising them.

I could ask the same of you. My model of the universe does not limit itself to what can be wrung out of the scientific method. I pretty much accept what science presents as its little truths, but I realize that science has not told the whole story and is not likely to ever do so.

Let me put it another way. Show me a problem that can not, even in theory, be tackled using the scientific method, with the one caveat that it not be a null hypothesis (and I grant you that, for certain folks at least, this might be a biggie). You can assume that our current technological sophistication is not a limiting factor.

That "quirk" of human learning is millions of years old and it is what got us to whsere we are today. I am surprised you are so casual about tossing it aside as unnecessary. As I have said before, it is necessary. We cannot function as people without experiential learning.

Ah, there's been a misunderstanding then. I wasn't saying experience isn't necessary for humans to learn, in fact I thought I was saying the opposite. The point I meant to make was experience of something isn't necessary, provided you have an accurate model of it, to predict behavior. That is, I could predict the behavior of a black hole, or of a teenage human male, provided I had a complete (or complete enough) understanding of all the processes I need to model to make the prediction.