Demographics -- Religion

[Kludge]

Demographics List (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2222435)

[WhiteHaven]

Agnostic.

[Freedom 4 all]

Christian-Other (Unitarian Universalist)

[acptulsa]

Protestants are lumped in with evangelicals?

I protest!!

[Kludge]

Protestants are lumped in with evangelicals?

I protest!!

There really was no reason for me to lump them together. Sorry. I scrapped the last poll because I didn't break the groupings up enough.

[erowe1]

There really was no reason for me to lump them together. Sorry. I scrapped the last poll because I didn't break the groupings up enough.

Sure there is a reason. Evangelical is historically just a synonym for Protestant.

[Kludge]

Sure there is a reason. Evangelical is historically just a synonym for Protestant.

Evangelicism's a sub-group, ain't it? I broke up the "Eastern" religions. I probably could've broken up the Protestant grouping.

[Natalie]

My parents are technically Catholic, but I consider myself a non-denominational Christian, so I voted for Christian (Other).

[Krugerrand]

I apologize if I am wrong on this, but I believe Mormons would identify themselves as Christian.

Also, perhaps Christian (Orthodox) deserves its own category.

[Kludge]

I apologize if I am wrong on this, but I believe Mormons would identify themselves as Christian.

Beats me. I copied the old demographics threads created by others almost entirely. I'm totally unfamiliar with Mormonism, less knowing that Utah is the Mormon state. A google search on "Are mormons christians?" has the first result saying "yes", and the second saying "no", and I'm in no mood to look into it.


Also, perhaps Christian (Orthodox) deserves its own category.

Maybe next year. :p

[Icymudpuppy]

Evangelicism's a sub-group, ain't it? I broke up the "Eastern" religions. I probably could've broken up the Protestant grouping.


You call that breaking up the eastern religions?

Muslim should be broken down into Sunni and Shi'a if Christian is broken into Catholic Protestant.

Buddhism should be broken down to Mahayana and Theravada.

Don't even get me started on Hindu breakdowns.

Eastern (other) is a pretty large group of many major faith systems including Sikh, Shinto, Taoism, Baha'i, and many more.

[Kludge]

Everybody's a critic! I broke up the "Eastern" religions from the groups-in-parentheses in the initial poll not created by me.

"Eastern" received ~3.4% in the initial poll. It isn't worth splitting up further, to be frank.

[RevolutionSD]

YouTube - The Case for Atheism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mek2Dl03NBQ)

[Mandrik]

Greek-Orthodox

[Kludge]

Bump for being one of the two polls I'm interested in.

[BoogerSnax]

42 years old, athiest since around 18.

Catholic until 15.
Unknowing Agnostic until 18.

[Pod]

Should you break up Protestantism it only makes sense to break it up between Protestant and Dissenter. Not Protestant and Evangelical. Evangelical is synonymous with Lutheranism in much of the world. (And is in the official names of Lutheran churches).

[Kludge]

Bump. Who else worships The Great State (as I'm assuming all "Other" votes are)?

[Vessol]

Agnostic. I'm a firm believer in freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

[Kludge]

Bump.

[Imaginos]

Agnostic. I'm a firm believer in freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
+1

[eOs]

//

[eOs]

I'm an agnostic atheist, and so is everyone else who doesn't subscribe to a fairy tale. Humanity simply does not know about its creation yet, and we reject all made up stories of how this happened.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition but certainty is an absurd one."-Voltaire

[tremendoustie]

Atheism isn't a religion, it's the rejection of made up stories. If you claim there are unicorns that created us all from their magical horns, and I say no they do not, that doesn't mean my religion is anti-unicornus

You know, the arrogance of folks like you gets really old fast. I could go reference a number of large threads explaining logically why the existence of the nonphysical is provable, and why I believe the existence of God is reasonable based on the evidence, but your head clearly wouldn't fit inside a discussion thread anyway, and it's not worth my time to waste serious thought on people who choose to be pigheaded.

I recognize that intelligent people can disagree with me -- I recognize that there are intelligent and thoughtful atheists and agnostics. Generally, if one's opinion is that a position held by a large portion of the human race cannot be held by any thinking person, one is a fool.

[eOs]

You know, the arrogance of folks like you gets really old fast. I could go reference a number of large threads explaining logically why the existence of the nonphysical is provable, and why I believe the existence of God is reasonable based on the evidence, but your head clearly wouldn't fit inside a discussion thread anyway, and it's not worth my time to waste serious thought on pigheaded people.

I recognize that intelligent people can disagree with me.

I'd love to see this evidence. You're really doing a horrible dis-service to the scientific community and humanity as a whole if you choose to not come fourth with it!

[speciallyblend]

Baptist/Protestant/Catholic , i voted other. I believe in a Higher Being(call him/her what you will) I believe in many things the church does not. many say i will go to hell. on that note i joined the GOP!

YouTube - Grateful Dead - Hell In A Bucket - 06-26-94 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUiutKkMeiA)

[GunnyFreedom]

Christian (other) ie: Hebrew-Roots

I believe that Yeshua is Messiah and that He is totally right, that He is ben-haShem (Son of God) and dabariy-Elohim (the Word of God). The scripture is right and true, and what contradictions appear to some are on account of an entire missing dimension having been enlightened by Ruach ha kodesh (the Holy Spirit).

Both Catholics and Protestants have gotten it terribly wrong by attempting to create Christianity as some "entirely new" thing rather than the continuation of the existing faith according to the deeper revelation of Messiah.

I keep the seven feasts and recognize the whole law as a revelation of the nature of haShem (God), a thing (the Law) which will never change or go away even if our own relationship to the law has indeed changed with the advent of Messiah.

Some call it "Messianic Jewish" but that is a loaded term as traditional Jews think we are trying to steal and condemn their children. Some call it "Hebrew-Roots" but that is a loaded term because Christian groups mock us as 'Judaizers' and 'legalizers.' None of which are true, of course, but whenever we come up with a fitting description, someone comes up and adds a pretty strong negative connotation to it.

In truth I identify myself simply as "a believer" but that would surely tell you nothing; therefore this description.

[Elle]

I was raised Catholic, but hold non religious beliefs, so I voted agnostic.

[tremendoustie]

I'd love to see this evidence. You're really doing a horrible dis-service to the scientific community and humanity as a whole if you choose to not come fourth with it!

I'm so glad you've refrained from a snide or arrogant attitude, your obvious open mindedness is really conducive to a serious conversation. :p

Fine .. forget the existence of God for now, let's start with the existence of the non-physical. Start with this thread, take the time to read and think about it, and let me know if you have any serious, substantive comments or questions on the discussion therein (this first part of the discussion is more based on logic than evidence).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=179484

I find that atheists who run around making arrogant statements about unicorns (or, conversely, Christians who run around making disparaging statements about atheists), are not often interested in or capable of serious thought on the issue. I'd be happy to be proved wrong. At least, I'd appreciate you not running around insulting everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint with crap canned slurs.

[sailingaway]

Protestants are lumped in with evangelicals?

I protest!!

I had similar thoughts.

And hence, didn't vote.

Christian, not very churchy. Vaguely protestant (raised Presbyterian, sort of.)

[Dr.3D]

Christian (Other), Non-denominational Church of God.

[RM918]

Generally Christian, suppose I lean toward the agnostic but for the hell of things I stay with the Christian narrative because I agree with the teachings even though I don't practice. Atheism never attracted me, but neither did hardcore religious adherence.

The one thing I can be certain of in life, is that I can be certain of absolutely nothing. Plenty of things I 'know' could be totally untrue as history has proven time and time again, so how could I 'know' that God is nothing but an imaginary sky unicorn or how could I 'know' that God will send me to hell if I eat meat during a certain time of the year? There tends to be hubris on both sides whenever atheists want to be smug about how right they are and religious types want to assure them they'll burn for blasphemy, though I don't really see the latter type around that often.

[eOs]

I'm so glad you've refrained from a snide or arrogant attitude, your obvious open mindedness is really conducive to a serious conversation. :p

Fine .. forget the existence of God for now, let's start with the existence of the non-physical. Start with this thread, take the time to read and think about it, and let me know if you have any serious, substantive comments or questions on the discussion therein (this first part of the discussion is more based on logic than evidence).

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=179484

I find that atheists who run around making arrogant statements about unicorns (or, conversely, Christians who run around making disparaging statements about atheists), are not often interested in or capable of serious thought on the issue. I'd be happy to be proved wrong. At least, I'd appreciate you not running around insulting everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint with crap canned slurs.

How do you expect me to read through all of that when your premise is that your god exists outside of reality, and that it cannot be proven? You know, I think taking a more humble approach with your beliefs might be more becoming, even Christianity admits that a "leap of faith" is required. So have fun with that.

[BuddyRey]

Christian (other) - Quaker.

[tremendoustie]

Firstly, eOs, we need to address the question of the existence of the nonphysical. I'd really rather focus on that, for starters, if you don't mind. This is what the arguments in that thread primarily address. Then, if you agree the nonphysical exists (or if you're willing to assume it for the sake of discussion), we can talk about the existence of God.


How do you expect me to read through all of that when your premise is that your god exists outside of reality


Well, if reality is defined as "everything that exists", then of course God is inside of reality.



, and that it cannot be proven?


Almost nothing can truly be proven. But, I do believe there is evidence for God.



You know, I think taking a more humble approach with your beliefs might be more becoming,


I'm just explaining, logically, why I believe what I do. I don't believe everyone who disagrees with me is unintelligent. Based on your "unicorn" comment, and other comments, it appears you do.



even Christianity admits that a "leap of faith" is required.


Faith is not blind belief in something without evidence. To have faith is to take risk in acting according to your rational beliefs. If you have examined the design of an experimental aircraft, and believe it to be sound, to volunteer to fly that aircraft requires faith in the aircraft. If you believe the aircraft to be unsound, to volunteer to fly it is insanity, not faith.

Likewise, to give your friend your wallet while you use the shower at the gym is an act demonstrating your faith in him. Hopefully that at of faith is based on a rational belief in his honestly.



So have fun with that.

Err ... ok :)

[Stop Making Cents]

I am a member of a religion and a people undergoing genocide by a hateful government and a hateful media that mocks our values and pushes diversity on us in their attempt to wipe us out.

[idirtify]

You know, the arrogance of folks like you gets really old fast. I could go reference a number of large threads explaining logically why the existence of the nonphysical is provable, and why I believe the existence of God is reasonable based on the evidence, but your head clearly wouldn't fit inside a discussion thread anyway, and it's not worth my time to waste serious thought on people who choose to be pigheaded.

I recognize that intelligent people can disagree with me -- I recognize that there are intelligent and thoughtful atheists and agnostics. Generally, if one's opinion is that a position held by a large portion of the human race cannot be held by any thinking person, one is a fool.

Thanks for making it so easy to explain the purpose for the separation clause; the inherent aggression and bigotry of religion. BTW, why is that? Since you are a religious person, maybe you can give us some insight. Is it your god that causes you to post so aggressively? Is it your god that causes you to initiate multiple insults? Is it your god that causes you to attack the person instead of the message? (You do understand the difference between the person and the message, don’t you?) You see, there are many of us non-religious types who don’t understand why you would so quickly resort to insults when no such thing was done to you. We don’t understand why you would post such ad hominem to a mere criticism of your belief/opinion. You see, it doesn’t make sense to us; because EVERYONE’S opinions and beliefs get criticized on discussion forums. Is YOUR belief “special”? Is it “above criticism”? We are also confused over your aggressive behavior because we are often told how religions and their gods are peaceful and just and loving. So why do their representatives so often demonstrate the opposite?

Anyway, suffice it to say that aggression and prejudice from non-religious people is NOT the reason for the separation clause. Thanks for providing my evidence.

[idirtify]

Firstly, eOs, we need to address the question of the existence of the nonphysical. I'd really rather focus on that, for starters, if you don't mind. This is what the arguments in that thread primarily address. Then, if you agree the nonphysical exists (or if you're willing to assume it for the sake of discussion), we can talk about the existence of God.



There’s nothing wrong with speculating. It’s been done ever since the invention of thought. But usually it either leads to discovery or to nowhere. When it leads to nowhere, the speculation is usually rejected/abandoned. But not with religion. Even though speculation on the existence of god is probably hundreds of thousands of years old and has not lead to any supporting evidence, it has not been abandoned. In this regard, it is unique. IOW, theorists have been trying to support a speculation for hundreds of thousands of years, and have STILL failed. AFAIK, that is the only reputation worse than the incompetence of the United States Post Office. :eek:

[charrob]

Baptist/Protestant/Catholic , i voted other. I believe in a Higher Being(call him/her what you will) I believe in many things the church does not.

ditto.

-for me, religion and spirituality are deeply personal and private; it seems deeply offensive to ever mention God in the company of politics for any personal agenda (as do, unfortunately, some politicians). To do so seems blasphemous.

-Deism, i think, means a belief in God (a Higher Being), and many of the Founders were Deists.

-raised Lutheran, i lean toward Christianity and as Jesus being more than a prophet;
but also believe that so much of any particular religion, including the Bible itself, has been simply interpreted by men who wanted to interpret it a certain way.

-speciallyblend, like you, i believe in many things the church does not. i feel closer to God after climbing a mountain than i ever could feel in a church.

[silentshout]

I voted agnostic/non-religious, but I'm more like a deist/pantheist. Non-religious, however, is the best match for me. I think it should have been it's own option. :). I believe in some sort of a creating force, but I don't think religion can explain it.

[tremendoustie]

Thanks for making it so easy to explain the purpose for the separation clause; the inherent aggression and bigotry of religion. BTW, why is that? Since you are a religious person, maybe you can give us some insight. Is it your god that causes you to post so aggressively?


I wasn't the one posting in a poll thread comparing the opinions of those who disagree with me on metaphysics to a belief in fairytales or unicorns.

Here's what he first said: "Atheism isn't a religion, it's the rejection of made up stories. If you claim there are unicorns that created us all from their magical horns, and I say no they do not, that doesn't mean my religion is anti-unicornus"

Here's what he edited his post to say: "I'm an agnostic atheist, and so is everyone else who doesn't subscribe to a fairy tale."

"Arrogant" is an absolutely accurate description of his post. One could also call it, "intentionally provocative" (although I didn't), and very much "pigheaded". I then went on to describe how I can recognize that reasonable intelligent people can disagree with me, and I'd hope he could do the same.



Is it your god that causes you to initiate multiple insults? Is it your god that causes you to attack the person instead of the message? (You do understand the difference between the person and the message, don’t you?)


I didn't initiate any insults, he did. I was objecting to his intentionally provocative, arrogant post, and many others like it.

If went around dropping random inflammatory and insulting comments about agnosticism or atheism, out of the blue, I'd expect to be called out too.



Is it your god that causes you to attack the person instead of the message? (You do understand the difference between the person and the message, don’t you?)


He was behaving arrogantly, and pigheadedly, absolutely.

I'm certainly imperfect, and I'm sure what I said was not perfect -- perhaps there was a better way for me to phrase this -- but there's nothing inherently wrong for calling out someone for objectionable behavior. Read Matthew 23 sometime.



You see, there are many of us non-religious types who don’t understand why you would so quickly resort to insults when no such thing was done to you.

His post was obviously and intentionally insulting.

If I had said something like, "I'm a Christian, and so is everyone who doesn't base their beliefs on dogmatic narrow minded mechanistic tripe", that would have likewise been insulting.

And, once again, had I done so, I'd expect to be called out.



We


Why don't you speak for yourself?



don’t understand why you would post such ad hominem to a mere criticism of your belief/opinion. You see, it doesn’t make sense to us; because EVERYONE’S opinions and beliefs get criticized on discussion forums. Is YOUR belief “special”? Is it “above criticism”?


Of course I would not mind substantive and thoughtful criticism or debate. His "criticism" as you call it was anything but substantive. It was a shallow and low slur.

I usually don't comment on these types of "out of the blue insult" posts, but I decided to respond to this one. Take it as a response to every similar petty slur, injected into an otherwise peaceful thread, on any subject.

They're stupid and nasty. They do not engender meaningful discussion.



We are also confused over your aggressive behavior because we are often told how religions and their gods are peaceful and just and loving. So why do their representatives so often demonstrate the opposite?

I didn't enter this thread by insulting athiests and agnostics. Eos' post was intentionally provocative, you know it, and you can stop the act now.

And you can also stop calling yourself "we".



Anyway, suffice it to say that aggression


I didn't initiate anything. I simply objected to eOs's post. My reaction was defensive, not agressive. I was not trying to stir something up where it did not exist; he was.

His wasn't the first post of the kind I'd seen, and I objected to it and to others.



and prejudice


I believe agnostics and atheists can be very intelligent, reasoned people. Obviously he, as well as others who make similar posts, do not. I would not post blanket slurs or insults against all those who do not share my beliefs. He did.

I'm not the one who's prejudiced.



from non-religious people is NOT the reason for the separation clause. Thanks for providing my evidence.

So, non-religious people are good and peaceful, and religious people are all aggressive. Yet, you call me the prejudiced one?

You've injected more bickering and passive aggressiveness, and no substance whatsoever.

I want either no discussion, or peaceful, meaningful, substantive discussion. Your, and eOs posts, indicate a clear desire for nothing by insult tossing. I'm done taking your bait.

"I'm an XYZ, and so is everyone who doesn't *Insult slurs here*", is not a statement made by someone interested in meaningful discussion or peaceful coexistence.

[tremendoustie]

There’s nothing wrong with speculating. It’s been done ever since the invention of thought. But usually it either leads to discovery or to nowhere. When it leads to nowhere, the speculation is usually rejected/abandoned. But not with religion. Even though speculation on the existence of god is probably hundreds of thousands of years old and has not lead to any supporting evidence, it has not been abandoned. In this regard, it is unique. IOW, theorists have been trying to support a speculation for hundreds of thousands of years, and have STILL failed. AFAIK, that is the only reputation worse than the incompetence of the United States Post Office. :eek:

I believe there certainly is supporting evidence. But, first, I'd appreciate it if we could focus on the question of the existence of the nonphysical. Perhaps you could read the thread I referenced, and bring up any substantive ideas/questions you have.

I appreciate the nature of this post (substantive), far more than your last (petty, provocative) :). Thanks for that, and I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I'm sure I could have objected to eOs post in a better way, as well.

[libertarian4321]

I believe that the Great Pumpkin is the one true God and that Linus van Pelt (peace be upon him) is his prophet.

No one can disprove this, therefore my religion is just as legitimate as any of yours (more legitimate, really, because I believe in the one true God and you are all heathens and blasphemers who follow false Gods).

I want my religion added to the list!

Now I must go to the pumpkin altar, burn some incense, and caress my security blanket while saying prayers to the Great Pumpkin- don't mock me for my beliefs, this is no more absurd than other religions!

All hail the pumpkin, the one true God and the only path to heaven! Unbelievers will rot in a fiery Hell for all eternity!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Deist. If you had no knowledge of the process of creating a computer and you were the only person on Earth, would you believe that it just is, and was never created? Everything has been created. The Laws of the Universe are not a stroke of random luck. If we know anything through observance, it is that much.

[idirtify]

I wasn't the one posting in a poll thread comparing the opinions of those who disagree with me on metaphysics to a belief in fairytales or unicorns.

Here's what he first said: "Atheism isn't a religion, it's the rejection of made up stories. If you claim there are unicorns that created us all from their magical horns, and I say no they do not, that doesn't mean my religion is anti-unicornus"

Here's what he edited his post to say: "I'm an agnostic atheist, and so is everyone else who doesn't subscribe to a fairy tale."

"Arrogant" is an absolutely accurate description of his post. One could also call it, "intentionally provocative" (although I didn't), and very much "pigheaded". I then went on to describe how I can recognize that reasonable intelligent people can disagree with me, and I'd hope he could do the same.



I didn't initiate any insults, he did. I was objecting to his intentionally provocative, arrogant post, and many others like it.

If went around dropping random inflammatory and insulting comments about agnosticism or atheism, out of the blue, I'd expect to be called out too.



He was behaving arrogantly, and pigheadedly, absolutely.

I'm certainly imperfect, and I'm sure what I said was not perfect -- perhaps there was a better way for me to phrase this -- but there's nothing inherently wrong for calling out someone for objectionable behavior. Read Matthew 23 sometime.



His post was obviously and intentionally insulting.

If I had said something like, "I'm a Christian, and so is everyone who doesn't base their beliefs on dogmatic narrow minded mechanistic tripe", that would have likewise been insulting.

And, once again, had I done so, I'd expect to be called out.



Why don't you speak for yourself?



Of course I would not mind substantive and thoughtful criticism or debate. His "criticism" as you call it was anything but substantive. It was a shallow and low slur.

I usually don't comment on these types of "out of the blue insult" posts, but I decided to respond to this one. Take it as a response to every similar petty slur, injected into an otherwise peaceful thread, on any subject.

They're stupid and nasty. They do not engender meaningful discussion.



I didn't enter this thread by insulting athiests and agnostics. Eos' post was intentionally provocative, you know it, and you can stop the act now.

And you can also stop calling yourself "we".



I didn't initiate anything. I simply objected to eOs's post. My reaction was defensive, not agressive. I was not trying to stir something up where it did not exist; he was.

His wasn't the first post of the kind I'd seen, and I objected to it and to others.



I believe agnostics and atheists can be very intelligent, reasoned people. Obviously he, as well as others who make similar posts, do not. I would not post blanket slurs or insults against all those who do not share my beliefs. He did.

I'm not the one who's prejudiced.



So, non-religious people are good and peaceful, and religious people are all aggressive. Yet, you call me the prejudiced one?

You've injected more bickering and passive aggressiveness, and no substance whatsoever.

I want either no discussion, or peaceful, meaningful, substantive discussion. Your, and eOs posts, indicate a clear desire for nothing by insult tossing. I'm done taking your bait.

"I'm an XYZ, and so is everyone who doesn't *Insult slurs here*", is not a statement made by someone interested in meaningful discussion or peaceful coexistence.

Apparently you DON’T understand the difference, or refuse to accept the standard definitions.

The comparison to fairytales and unicorns was only as attack on your beliefs. It was NOT an attack on your person. And your name-calling was NOT “a description of his posts”; it was a direct attack on his person. He initiated no insults. You are only CLAIMING he insulted you, so you can defend yours. (Did your god tell you to mischaracterize your behavior, and his?)

Your comparison even admits it when you equate “dropping random inflammatory and insulting comments about agnosticism or atheism, out of the blue”. HINT: “agnosticism or atheism” is NOT a person; it’s a MESSAGE/OPINION – and attacking it would be no excuse for someone to reply with insults. If you truly think it is insulting, you are misperceiving reality. It doesn’t matter how “insubstantial” or “thoughtless” or “shallow” or “stupid” or “meaningless” or “provocative” the criticism; if it doesn’t attack your person, you have no justification for replying with personal insults.



Originally Posted by idirtify
Anyway, suffice it to say that aggression and prejudice from non-religious people is NOT the reason for the separation clause. Thanks for providing my evidence.

So, non-religious people are good and peaceful, and religious people are all aggressive. Yet, you call me the prejudiced one?

Since you do not know the standard definition of “insult”, maybe you also don’t know the standard definition of “straw-man argument”. So here’s a clue: Your comment can only be valid after you distort my comment with two absolute exaggerations. Nowhere did I imply such absolutisms about religious/non-religious people. You simply made it up.

But I think you are learning. At least you did not insult me. While you mischaracterized my post by calling it “bickering” and “passive aggressiveness” and “no substance” and “insult tossing”, at least you didn’t call ME “pigheaded”.

[BuddyRey]

I believe that the Great Pumpkin is the one true God and that Linus van Pelt (peace be upon him) is his prophet.

No one can disprove this, therefore my religion is just as legitimate as any of yours (more legitimate, really, because I believe in the one true God and you are all heathens and blasphemers who follow false Gods).

I want my religion added to the list!

Now I must go to the pumpkin altar, burn some incense, and caress my security blanket while saying prayers to the Great Pumpkin- don't mock me for my beliefs, this is no more absurd than other religions!

All hail the pumpkin, the one true God and the only path to heaven! Unbelievers will rot in a fiery Hell for all eternity!

I lol'd! :D

[idirtify]

I believe there certainly is supporting evidence. But, first, I'd appreciate it if we could focus on the question of the existence of the nonphysical. Perhaps you could read the thread I referenced, and bring up any substantive ideas/questions you have.

I appreciate the nature of this post (substantive), far more than your last (petty, provocative) :). Thanks for that, and I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I'm sure I could have objected to eOs post in a better way, as well.

Regarding “physical” and “non-physical”, first we need to specify our definitions. What do you mean by “non-physical”? (Instead of sending me to another thread to search for it, why don’t you just tell me yourself right here?)

[rprprs]

Deist. If you had no knowledge of the process of creating a computer and you were the only person on Earth, would you believe that it just is, and was never created? Everything has been created. The Laws of the Universe are not a stroke of random luck. If we know anything through observance, it is that much.

'Everything', of course, would include the deity.

[tremendoustie]

at least you didn’t call ME “pigheaded”.

I said he was choosing to be pigheaded, which he absolutely was. I was referencing his behavior. One certainly can be pigheaded and rude in one's criticism of other people's beliefs. Posting unprovoked insults in a poll thread qualifies.

And yes, issuing slurs against a person's beliefs is absolutely insulting. If I say that the ideas of everyone who disagrees with me are based on "dangerous violent irrational mentally ill delusions", what am I saying about those people? eOs post, and others like it, are clearly intended to be inflammatory, and do not engender either peaceful coexistence or thoughtful discussion.

Nor, by the way, does your attempt to impugn everyone who believes in God by your criticism of me. I didn't start making general statements about atheists or agnostics based on eOs post, or yours.

But whatever.

[erowe1]

Thanks for making it so easy to explain the purpose for the separation clause; the inherent aggression and bigotry of religion. BTW, why is that? Since you are a religious person, maybe you can give us some insight. Is it your god that causes you to post so aggressively? Is it your god that causes you to initiate multiple insults? Is it your god that causes you to attack the person instead of the message? (You do understand the difference between the person and the message, don’t you?) You see, there are many of us non-religious types who don’t understand why you would so quickly resort to insults when no such thing was done to you. We don’t understand why you would post such ad hominem to a mere criticism of your belief/opinion. You see, it doesn’t make sense to us; because EVERYONE’S opinions and beliefs get criticized on discussion forums. Is YOUR belief “special”? Is it “above criticism”? We are also confused over your aggressive behavior because we are often told how religions and their gods are peaceful and just and loving. So why do their representatives so often demonstrate the opposite?

Anyway, suffice it to say that aggression and prejudice from non-religious people is NOT the reason for the separation clause. Thanks for providing my evidence.

Sorry for butting in.

What is "the separation clause"?

[tremendoustie]

Look, I fully admit I could have handled that better, and worded my objections in a more effective way. I'm sorry for any negative effects I caused. I'm just sick of seeing these kinds of snide remarks thrown in to peaceful threads, to create conflict where none existed. If someone wants a real discussion, there are far better ways of creating it.

[libertarian4321]

I lol'd! :D

LoL?

Do you mock the Pumpkin and his prophet (pbuh)?

The Pumpkin is a peaceful and loving God, but does not tolerate BLASPHEMY!

You must be cleansed (that's religion speak for "killed")!

[BuddyRey]

LoL?

Do you mock the Pumpkin and his prophet (pbuh)?

The Pumpkin is a peaceful and loving God, but does not tolerate BLASPHEMY!

You must be cleansed (that's religion speak for "killed")!

Is the Church of the Great Pumpkin cool with gay marriage? I ask because I happen to know of a parishioner named Peppermint Patty who seems a bit self-repressed.

[The Patriot]

Atheist

[tremendoustie]

Regarding “physical” and “non-physical”, first we need to specify our definitions. What do you mean by “non-physical”? (Instead of sending me to another thread to search for it, why don’t you just tell me yourself right here?)

I'd say a physical object is one whose attributes are entirely (at least in theory) observable scientifically (through the senses, repeatable, quantifiable, and communicable), and which can be completely described by the nature and position (and velocity) of its composite particles.

I hope we can avoid delving too much into definitions, thereby losing sight of the real discussion. I'm simply using the common sense understanding of "physical". Here's the webster definition, which I also agree with: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical

1 a : of or relating to natural science b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics
2 a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance — Thomas De Quincey> b : of or relating to material things

Of course, any entity (or component, or attribute thereof) which is not physical would be considered nonphysical.

[idirtify]

I said he was choosing to be pigheaded, which he absolutely was. I was referencing his behavior. One certainly can be pigheaded and rude in one's criticism of other people's beliefs. Posting unprovoked insults in a poll thread qualifies.

And yes, issuing slurs against a person's beliefs is absolutely insulting. If I say that the ideas of everyone who disagrees with me are based on "dangerous violent irrational mentally ill delusions", what am I saying about those people? eOs post, and others like it, are clearly intended to be inflammatory, and do not engender either peaceful coexistence or thoughtful discussion.

Nor, by the way, does your attempt to impugn everyone who believes in God by your criticism of me. I didn't start making general statements about atheists or agnostics based on eOs post, or yours.

But whatever.

You called his person “pigheaded”. It’s that simple. And when you reiterate that he “absolutely was”, you are only repeating the insult. PLEASE STOP. It is a forum violation. If you still don’t agree, go read the TOS for LF. Falsely claiming that he was choosing to be pigheaded and was provoking you is only a deceitful attempt to blame him for deserving your insult. You are only digging your hole deeper and losing more credibility.

And proof that he did not insult you is your admission that his post was only (a “slur”) against your BELIEFS. Attacks of beliefs are no different than disagreements with any opinions, and are NOT insults. If you think they are insults, and deserve an insult in reply, you are wrong on both counts and violate the most fundamental element of the discussion forum process. Please at least look up “ad hominem”. I can not believe that a member with your post-count can be so misinformed about THE MOST BASIC discussion forum rule. No matter how you now try to distort things ("dangerous violent irrational mentally ill delusions”), it’s all in black and white transcript form for anyone to go back and read.

Please stop with the hostility. You have no valid explanation or excuse.

[idirtify]

Look, I fully admit I could have handled that better, and worded my objections in a more effective way. I'm sorry for any negative effects I caused. I'm just sick of seeing these kinds of snide remarks thrown in to peaceful threads, to create conflict where none existed. If someone wants a real discussion, there are far better ways of creating it.

YOU created the conflict with your overreaction. It’s fine for you to admit it, but don’t try to excuse and exacerbate it in the process.

[idirtify]

I'd say a physical object is one whose attributes are entirely (at least in theory) observable scientifically (through the senses, repeatable, quantifiable, and communicable), and which can be completely described by the nature and position (and velocity) of its composite particles.

I hope we can avoid delving too much into definitions, thereby losing sight of the real discussion. I'm simply using the common sense understanding of "physical". Here's the webster definition, which I also agree with: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical

1 a : of or relating to natural science b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics
2 a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance — Thomas De Quincey> b : of or relating to material things

Of course, any entity (or component, or attribute thereof) which is not physical would be considered nonphysical.

You can’t have an intelligent discussion without first agreeing on definitions of relative terms, especially when it comes to such vague topics like religion.

Regarding your definitions, just to be clear: Do you also consider observable WAVE action (in contrast to “particles”) “physical”?

[Seraphim]

Agnostic.

Ditto. I 100% do not believe in the GOD of religion (I'm not arrogant enough to say that I KNOW it doesn't exist, but I'm pretty damn close to knowing it).

But I do believe in something "greater". The connection of energy that is the foundation of the Universe...something like.

I just don't believe in a singular omnipotent creator. That is just non-sense to me. Ditto for God loving us (if there is a God). If there is a singular creator it doesn't care about us anymore then it does the rest of it's creation. I.e the sum is far more important than humans.

Like any mathematical equation (and EVERY aspect of life, and every aspect of the Universe is, at it's core, a mathematical equation) if a balance in the equation is not current reality, a balance will naturally be found. And humans, as of now, are throwing off the Earths quantifiable balance. And we will pay for it...

[heavenlyboy34]

Ditto. I 100% do not believe in the GOD of religion (I'm not arrogant enough to say that I KNOW it doesn't exist, but I'm pretty damn close to knowing it).

But I do believe in something "greater". The connection of energy that is the foundation of the Universe...something like.

I just don't believe in a singular omnipotent creator. That is just non-sense to me. Ditto for God loving us (if there is a God). If there is a singular creator it doesn't care about us anymore then it does the rest of it's creation. I.e the sum is far more important than humans.

Like any mathematical equation (and EVERY aspect of life, and every aspect of the Universe is, at it's core, a mathematical equation) if a balance in the equation is not current reality, a balance will naturally be found. And humans, as of now, are throwing off the Earths quantifiable balance. And we will pay for it...

Sounds reasonable. If I may ask, do you agree with Jefferson's opinion of Yeshua(Jesus)? It seems you and he are largely in agreement about religion. JMHO

[YumYum]

Like any mathematical equation (and EVERY aspect of life, and every aspect of the Universe is, at it's core, a mathematical equation) if a balance in the equation is not current reality, a balance will naturally be found. And humans, as of now, are throwing off the Earths quantifiable balance. And we will pay for it...

That is not entirely true. Define a number divided by zero. It is undefined if left in mathematical form, but can be explained in Quantum theory. The slope of a vertical line is undefined, and this can be illustrated by a graph. Picture that you have a graph with an x and y axis, and the graph represents time verses distance. The vertical line, the y axis, represents distance, while the horizontal line, the x axis, represents time. When the vertical line is straight up, it becomes undefined, because theoretically in Newtonian Physics you cannot be in two places at the same time. When the vertical line is straight up, there is no change in the x axis.

Scientist have recently demonstrated that a molecule can be in two places at the same time, thus proving Einstein's theory and disproving Newton.

Since this recent discovery, which proves Quantum theory, Christians who once considered science to be an enemy, now consider it to be a friend.

Everything can be defined in code, rather than mathematics.

[GunnyFreedom]

You can’t have an intelligent discussion without first agreeing on definitions of relative terms, especially when it comes to such vague topics like religion.

Regarding your definitions, just to be clear: Do you also consider observable WAVE action (in contrast to “particles”) “physical”?

Seriously, and with all due respect, if you and e0s can not perceive the prejudice steaming from your offerings in this thread then perhaps you need to see with new eyes. I have heard that prejudices are the hardest thing to see in one's self, as they masquerade as being the natural world. I'm not judging you the posters, as all have a right to seek their ends as they please, but if you don't see the attack and barb in your posts then honestly it is beyond the capability of anyone to explain it, and to see it would require a new set of eyes. Thus until those eyes open there will neither be profit nor peace in the engagement.

[Seraphim]

Sounds reasonable. If I may ask, do you agree with Jefferson's opinion of Yeshua(Jesus)? It seems you and he are largely in agreement about religion. JMHO

I am not sure what his thoughts on Jesus are. Can you tell me? But it seems anytime I come across a Jefferson thought or quote I always share a very similar opinion. He is my favorite Founding Father for the simple reason that he seemed to have the best mix of heart, soul and rational thought.

I may not be American (I'm Canadian), but America has lost it's way and it is because the Constitutional founding principles have been severly diverted from. In my opinion it is the issuance of fiat currency as debt on interest to the people by private entities that is the single largest and most negative divergence.

Americans: Make no mistake about it. You now live in a FACIST country. Full blown Facism. I don't live in your lands (right now), but the only way to regain your country is to first realize that you now live in the most powerful facist country in the history of the world. Without accepting that fascism is the name of the game, than change cannot come. FIX IT. I will do my part here in Canada. I promise.

[heavenlyboy34]

I am not sure what his thoughts on Jesus are. Can you tell me? But it seems anytime I come across a Jefferson thought or quote I always share a very similar opinion. He is my favorite Founding Father for the simple reason that he seemed to have the best mix of heart, soul and rational thought.

I may not be American (I'm Canadian), but America has lost it's way and it is because the Constitutional founding principles have been severly diverted from. In my opinion it is the issuance of fiat currency as debt on interest to the people by private entities that is the single largest and most negative divergence.

Americans: Make no mistake about it. You now live in a FACIST country. Full blown Facism. I don't live in your lands (right now), but the only way to regain your country is to first realize that you now live in the most powerful facist country in the history of the world. Without accepting that fascism is the name of the game, than change cannot come. FIX IT. I will do my part here in Canada. I promise.


IMHO, it would do injustice to Jefferson to summarize his deep thoughts on the subject, so I refer you to the Jefferson Encvclopedia maintained by his estate. The below link will help you learn what he thought of just about everything. :) (I can tell you off my head that he considered Paul to be "The first corrupter of Christianity)

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Thomas_Jefferson_Encyclopedia

[Seraphim]

That is not entirely true. Define a number divided by zero. It is undefined if left in mathematical form, but can be explained in Quantum theory. The slope of a vertical line is undefined, and this can be illustrated by a graph. Picture that you have a graph with an x and y axis, and the graph represents time verses distance. The vertical line, the y axis, represents distance, while the horizontal line, the x axis, represents time. When the vertical line is straight up, it becomes undefined, because theoretically in Newtonian Physics you cannot be in two places at the same time. When the vertical line is straight up, there is no change in the x axis.

Scientist have recently demonstrated that a molecule can be in two places at the same time, thus proving Einstein's theory and disproving Newton.

Since this recent discovery, which proves Quantum theory, Christians who once considered science to be an enemy, now consider it to be a friend.

Everything can be defined in code, rather than mathematics.


Code is mathematics my friend. Code is algorithms. Math.

As for a vertical line being undefined in the example you gave. Just because a molecule can be in 2 places at once it does not mean there is not a quantifiable mathematic balance. We may just not know how to express it yet. Or the numbers are so astrologically massive that, why bother? Just a thought. But even neutrality and undefined numbers are balanced.

[Seraphim]

IMHO, it would do injustice to Jefferson to summarize his deep thoughts on the subject, so I refer you to the Jefferson Encvclopedia maintained by his estate. The below link will help you learn what he thought of just about everything. :) (I can tell you off my head that he considered Paul to be "The first corrupter of Christianity)

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Thomas_Jefferson_Encyclopedia

Before I read about his religious beliefs and Jesus. I will say this about Jesus.

It is probable he never existed. It is equally probable that Jesus was just man, a superbly honest and revolutionary one however. It is very probable that the man was of such societal importance that his story has remained in culture for so long, but has been deeply abused by people seeking power. It is highly improbable he was the son of God. His feats of walking on water etc are almost assuredly hyperbole (unintentionally) twisted from generation to generation. Think of the game "Telephone".

I believe in the concepts and teaching of Jesus and the Ten Commandments. I just don't believe they came from an omnipotent creator. I believe they came from people much like the Founding Fathers of the USA who, in writing, put forth revolutionary ideas of economic justice and liberty for all who stand in the lands and abide to a very select few, but important laws.

Just like religious institutions abusing the mass belief in the Bible and Jesus, we see modern world financiers (and most noticeably their puppet politicians) abusing the principals of the Founding Father because they know that populace wide opiates work wonders to manufacture consent.

In practice, the Constitution of the USA is dead. At best on life support. In theory, it is abused wholesale by the power that be, because as mentioned, it works wonders to lull the masses into a false sense of freedom, all the while willingly handing over social and economic freedoms, convinced the rhetoric is real.

[Seraphim]

IMHO, it would do injustice to Jefferson to summarize his deep thoughts on the subject, so I refer you to the Jefferson Encvclopedia maintained by his estate. The below link will help you learn what he thought of just about everything. :) (I can tell you off my head that he considered Paul to be "The first corrupter of Christianity)

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Thomas_Jefferson_Encyclopedia

I didn't find much about him on Jesus in there but I did search else where. His general opinion on religion is pretty much spot on (ditto for his opinions on Jesus). Very smart guy.

QUESTION EVERTYHING.

It is the only rational thing to do.

[heavenlyboy34]

I didn't find much about him on Jesus in there but I did search else where. His general opinion on religion is pretty much spot on (ditto for his opinions on Jesus). Very smart guy.

QUESTION EVERTYHING.

It is the only rational thing to do.

I would agree. Jefferson clearly put a lot of thought into the subject, and there's much to be learned from him. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

I didn't find much about him on Jesus in there but I did search else where. His general opinion on religion is pretty much spot on (ditto for his opinions on Jesus). Very smart guy.

QUESTION EVERTYHING.

It is the only rational thing to do.

I would agree. Jefferson clearly put a lot of thought into the subject, and there's much to be learned from him. :cool:

Member AED was kind enough to put an important Jefferson piece in a related thread:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/jefferson_deisty.htm

It's entitled "Existence of Deity/God". Enjoy! :):cool:

[idirtify]

Originally Posted by idirtify
You can’t have an intelligent discussion without first agreeing on definitions of relative terms, especially when it comes to such vague topics like religion.

Regarding your definitions, just to be clear: Do you also consider observable WAVE action (in contrast to “particles”) “physical”?



Seriously, and with all due respect, if you and e0s can not perceive the prejudice steaming from your offerings in this thread then perhaps you need to see with new eyes. I have heard that prejudices are the hardest thing to see in one's self, as they masquerade as being the natural world. I'm not judging you the posters, as all have a right to seek their ends as they please, but if you don't see the attack and barb in your posts then honestly it is beyond the capability of anyone to explain it, and to see it would require a new set of eyes. Thus until those eyes open there will neither be profit nor peace in the engagement.

You claim I am posting “prejudice” and “attack and barb”. But then you add that because I don’t see it (“would require a new set of eyes”) then you can’t explain it. Are you talking about my comments that you quoted under? Well it’s true that I don’t see it there. But common, give it a try. Maybe I posted prejudice elsewhere, and I’m missing it. You don’t give yourself enough credit. Maybe you can explain it better. Common, show me where I have been prejudiced. Please…open my eyes.

Seriously; if you can’t perform such a simple task as explaining how/why SPECIFIC comments of mine are prejudiced, don’t blame it on me. And if you truly see no profit in the engagement, why did you just commit 121 words to the effort?

[GunnyFreedom]

Originally Posted by idirtify
You can’t have an intelligent discussion without first agreeing on definitions of relative terms, especially when it comes to such vague topics like religion.

Regarding your definitions, just to be clear: Do you also consider observable WAVE action (in contrast to “particles”) “physical”?




You claim I am posting “prejudice” and “attack and barb”. But then you add that because I don’t see it (“would require a new set of eyes”) then you can’t explain it. Are you talking about my comments that you quoted under? Well it’s true that I don’t see it there. But common, give it a try. Maybe I posted prejudice elsewhere, and I’m missing it. You don’t give yourself enough credit. Maybe you can explain it better. Common, show me where I have been prejudiced. Please…open my eyes.

Seriously; if you can’t perform such a simple task as explaining how/why SPECIFIC comments of mine are prejudiced, don’t blame it on me. And if you truly see no profit in the engagement, why did you just commit 121 words to the effort?

to stop the rest from trying so that we can be about the business of restoring the Republic. :)

[GunnyFreedom]

“would require a new set of eyes”


Perhaps the word you need is "perspective." All I need to know is you dug. hard. and that you clearly don't see it. What else do I need to know? If you saw it there would be hope in argument. Until you can, there is none. You lack the perspective to see the brutal attacks in your own offerings. It is neither a sin nor a crime any more than myopia.

[idirtify]

to stop the rest from trying so that we can be about the business of restoring the Republic. :)

You needn’t worry about that. The rest of the forum is taking care of the business of restoring the Republic just fine. We are safely here in the off-topic religious forum where we can discuss things like this without concern.

[idirtify]

Perhaps the word you need is "perspective." All I need to know is you dug. hard. and that you clearly don't see it. What else do I need to know? If you saw it there would be hope in argument. Until you can, there is none. You lack the perspective to see the brutal attacks in your own offerings. It is neither a sin nor a crime any more than myopia.

Wow! It appears my previous comments are becoming worse with every one of YOUR posts. Now they are “brutal attacks”. They must have a life of their own :) .That’s pretty amazing, especially considering that you have yet to cite my offense(s). I would think something so atrocious would be pretty easy to retrieve. But since you say I can not see, you magically exempt yourself from the burden of supporting your allegations. How nice.

[politicsNproverbs]

And yes, issuing slurs against a person's beliefs is absolutely insulting. If I say that the ideas of everyone who disagrees with me are based on "dangerous violent irrational mentally ill delusions", what am I saying about those people? eOs post, and others like it, are clearly intended to be inflammatory, and do not engender either peaceful coexistence or thoughtful discussion.

+1000 Amen, brother! (though I probably wouldn't bother exerting the time/energy trying to reason with anyone who doesn't want it.)

It is "politically incorrect" these days to believe in God, the Bible, Jesus, prophecy, etc. But that's how it has to be, was prophesied to be, & will only get worse. Believers are always in the minority, always have been; that's one of the ways that the Lord "makes the wise foolish."

The anti-God propaganda over the past 120 years has been extremely successful. The evidence in attitudes is everywhere, in every forum, every medium (& media), in every aspect & every institution of society.

Christians are ignorant, dontchaknow? :) Yet while the world claims intellectualism, darwinism, secular humanism, & every other ism, et al, as its foundational belief system, all that means is it has fallen darker & deeper for the anti-God propaganda which has been poured out like a flood upon the minds of men.

It is a little surprising in forums, especially like this one, where people are so much more aware re the hijacking of America (& the world) from the inside out, that they fail to see/understand that "God" has been "hijacked" from the inside-out as well. It's part of the plan of the now-obvious powers-that-be who are carrying out their centuries-old plan...

Dumb down (destroy) the school systems
Dumb down (destroy) the media
Dumb down (destroy) the economy
Dumb down (destroy) the sexes
Dumb down (destroy) the churches
etc. etc.

Yet people want to blame/reject God instead of the guilty. Go figure.

~~~~~

Christian, non-denominational, Pauline Grace all the way!

[politicsNproverbs]

In practice, the Constitution of the USA is dead. At best on life support. In theory, it is abused wholesale by the power that be, because as mentioned, it works wonders to lull the masses into a false sense of freedom, all the while willingly handing over social and economic freedoms, convinced the rhetoric is real.

That is a perfect description of what I was saying before...

"In practice, the (God/Word of God/Scripture/Christianity) (in) the USA is dead. At best on life support. In theory, it is abused wholesale by the powers that be, because as mentioned, it (in its purposefully-abused form) works wonders to lull the masses into a false sense of freedom (=If God & His Bible are dead, we are then free to reject Him since He must not exist), all the while willingly handing over (faith, wisdom) and (our souls), convinced the (anti-God) rhetoric is real."

See what I mean? The very same destructive plots against the country have been used against the knowledge of God. Same perpetrators, same plan, same goals.

They gotcha.

[libertarian4321]

Is the Church of the Great Pumpkin cool with gay marriage? I ask because I happen to know of a parishioner named Peppermint Patty who seems a bit self-repressed.

Those of us who worship the Great Pumpkin are just as repressed, uptight, judgmental and intolerant as any other religion! The prophet (pbuh) says that the unholy and unclean must be purified! Stoning or burning at the stake are both acceptable forms of purification for this sin against the Pumpkin.

[tremendoustie]

You can’t have an intelligent discussion without first agreeing on definitions of relative terms, especially when it comes to such vague topics like religion.

Regarding your definitions, just to be clear: Do you also consider observable WAVE action (in contrast to “particles”) “physical”?

I would consider any observation which meets scientific criteria (through the senses, repeatable, quantifiable, and communicable) to be a physical observation.

[malkusm]

Non-religious. I consider myself to be spiritual and subscribe to many of the moral teachings found in the Bible; however, I denounce organized religion. Organized religion is often used as a means to an end by many who attend service regularly (as a way to feel morally responsible or superior to others, in some cases, without actually living and acting in the manner which the scripture teaches). The "church" itself also breeds corruption at the higher levels (any level removed from the community).

So, I keep my spirituality separate from the church, but of course I respect everyone who chooses to practice their faith differently.

[tremendoustie]

Non-religious. I consider myself to be spiritual and subscribe to many of the moral teachings found in the Bible; however, I denounce organized religion. Organized religion is often used as a means to an end by many who attend service regularly (as a way to feel morally responsible or superior to others, in some cases, without actually living and acting in the manner which the scripture teaches). The "church" itself also breeds corruption at the higher levels (any level removed from the community).

So, I keep my spirituality separate from the church, but of course I respect everyone who chooses to practice their faith differently.

I respect your viewpoint as well, and acknowledge that church can be used as a cover for superficial spirituality, or pride. Don't you think it can be helpful for people who are trying to follow God, to get together though? I mean, just because an activity can be abused, doesn't mean it never has merit, right?

[idirtify]

I would consider any observation which meets scientific criteria (through the senses, repeatable, quantifiable, and communicable) to be a physical observation.

Fair enough definitions, but where do you classify such common things like thought, feeling, consciousness, information, processes, movement and energy forces?

[malkusm]

I respect your viewpoint as well, and acknowledge that church can be used as a cover for superficial spirituality, or pride. Don't you think it can be helpful for people who are trying to follow God, to get together though? I mean, just because an activity can be abused, doesn't mean it never has merit, right?

Absolutely - fellowship is a cornerstone of faith and the church. I've always been surrounded by people who were religious and so I've never felt that this was a pressing concern; but, were I a minority in my faith, I would be much more attracted to organized religion for that reason. (I also feel that in those situations, organized religion is used less as a social avenue and less a magnet for corruption, which would further my pursuit of faith through the church.)

[tremendoustie]

Fair enough definitions, but where do you classify such common things like thought, feeling, consciousness, information, processes, movement and energy forces?

I don't think internal, mental observations meet scientific criteria, so I don't consider them physical observations. I'd say "movement", is a description of a particular type of physical observation, while "energy" is a concept used to help predict certain physical observations.

In that thread I linked to, I explained my thoughts on some of these issues (and others) with some care -- if you don't mind, rather than rehash it all, I'd appreciate if you'd read it, and post your thoughts/questions on those arguments here (or there). Thanks :)

Here's that thread again, so you don't have to go digging through old posts: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=179484

[idirtify]

I don't think internal, mental observations meet scientific criteria, so I don't consider them physical observations. I'd say "movement", is a description of a particular type of physical observation, while "energy" is a concept used to help predict certain physical observations.

In that thread I linked to, I explained my thoughts on some of these issues (and others) with some care -- if you don't mind, rather than rehash it all, I'd appreciate if you'd read it, and post your thoughts/questions on those arguments here (or there). Thanks :)

Here's that thread again, so you don't have to go digging through old posts: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=179484

I just read your first posts on your link and, just as I suspected, you appear to be trying to use the “non-physical” aspect of consciousness (and/or self-awareness) as evidence for god. But aside from other problems with this connection, your premise is wrong; scientific observations CAN evidence what you call “the non-physical” – and they are not “unscientific observations”. Much science deals with things like information and design and organization and processes – and consciousness, which could be grouped similarly. While consciousness itself can not be “observed” like cells or molecules, it can be observed as the result of those kinds of physical components. BTW, self-awareness (more developed consciousness) too can be scientifically observed; by the different interactions of dogs and higher primates with mirrors.

[tremendoustie]

I just read your first posts on your link and, just as I suspected, you appear to be trying to use the “non-physical” aspect of consciousness (and/or self-awareness) as evidence for god.


I'm only arguing for the existence of the nonphysical at this point. Let's not worry about God, at least for now.



But aside from other problems with this connection, your premise is wrong; scientific observations CAN evidence what you call “the non-physical” – and they are not “unscientific observations”.


Self awareness is not a scientific observation, nor could you prove scientifically that I experience awareness. As far as you know, I may only be a completely unaware particularly complex collection of bouncing inanimate particles.

You're responding viscerally to the topic of my arguments, without addressing the substance of them. I'd appreciate if you would think carefully about this, at least read all of hypnagogue's points, and all of my responses (it's only the first 10 posts). As I said to him on the second post, this warrants more thought than you're giving it.

Here's a thought experiment (from post #8):


Suppose at some future date, you are lying in the ultimate medical imaging machine, which can completely determine the physical state of your brain at infinite detail, in real time. You may surmise that there would be a correlation between the physical state of your brain, and the internal state of your mind -- and you might be right.

But, you have just made a key admission. You have admitted that despite that perfect physical knowledge that the machine gives you, there are other attributes with which this perfect physical knowledge can be correlated -- namely, your internal observations. This is key -- according to a mechanical definition of the universe, there IS nothing other than the physical state. There should be nothing to correlate to -- once you know the complete physical state, you should know everything -- game over. The fact that you are now taking this perfect physical knowledge and trying to correlate it with something means you admit that there are attributes which are not physical.

Any attribute, in a mechanical universe, is literally defined by a physical observation or physical state. Yet, self awareness is not defined in this way, because quite simply, it is not a physical attribute. Any correlation between brain state and self-awareness which scientists "discover" would have to be based on taking a participant's word for it, which is faulty at best - and certainly not based on only physical evidence.Here's another thought experiment (post #6):



Suppose each of us comes up with a theory to explain Joe's day to day existence. You propose the theory that he is an automaton, with no self awareness. You cannot explain all of his behaviors, because of quantum mechanical uncertainly and the famed "butterfly effect", yet you do a pretty good job for certain short term predictions, and you are sure that his behaviors are deterministic, with some randomness thrown in.

I propose the theory that Joe has something called a "mind", and a significant portion of his actions are due to the conscious choice of that mind. These are the actions which have a component of "randomness" in your model. The only things I know about Joe are from external observation, so I really don't do any better job of prediction than you do.

From a scientific perspective, my theory is superfluous. I do not make any predictions which are better than yours, and I suppose a "mind", which your model does not require. From a purely scientific perspective, my theory "leaves us understanding no more than we did before."

Yet, suppose we now consider Joe's perspective. These theories become quite different, and since he can observe his self-awareness, he knows that my model is in fact correct, and the other false. It turns out that my theory does have important implications, but they are not SCIENTIFIC implications.

Or, in a more abstract context, consider a number of three dimensional shapes, which pass through a flat plane, as in a paper. A couple spheres are debating whether all that exists is the plane, or whether there is a third dimension. The sphere in favor of the two dimensional model says, "You suppose a third dimension, but look, it has no predictive power on the plane. I can explain everything on the plane by supposing we are only growing and shrinking circles, and I use only instruments which measure along that plane. Your theory is unnecessary." The other replies, "Yes, but you ignore the third dimension -- we are not only circles you know, and we have ways of observing that as well, but we must use different instruments."Here's another way to think about it:

Scientific observation is a particular type of experience of the mind. Now, we have a large number of experiences which are very predictable, and described well by a few laws which we call "physics". These types of experiences are called "matter".

But, if matter is a particular set of experiences of the mind (observations), which is described well by rules we call "physics", than to say that the mind is only matter is to say that the mind is an experience of the mind. It is circular. In other words, it is an effort to say that the "observer" is really himself only "observations" -- i.e. that the "experiencer" is really himself only "experiences" -- which reduces everything to experiences. Yet, experiences by definition require an experiencer. It's a self destroying loop.



Much science deals with things like information and design and organization and processes – and consciousness, which could be grouped similarly.

I am not talking about consciousness as a description of how little balls bounce sometimes. I am talking about the experience of self awareness that I have, and I can only assume others have.

You know, the difference between me and a rock (well, at least, I assume rocks are not people too ;))



While consciousness itself can not be “observed” like cells or molecules


Interesting. So ... this "consciousness" is an attribute a person has, but it cannot be physically observed? Sounds nonphysical to me.



, it can be observed as the result of those kinds of physical components.


So, you see some physical soup floating around, and just assume that that physical mess corresponds to a conscious mind? Isn't it just as possible that the whole thing is just a bunch of mindless bouncing billiard balls?

Once again, it's not about neuroscience -- indeed, suppose the ultimate goal of all neuroscience were achieved -- we had full knowlege of physical brain behavior, and furthermore, suppose we ignore the effects of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (http://%22http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle%22) and Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions (http://%22http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect%22). That is, suppose we could combine a perfect knowledge of the physical state of a person's brain and environment with a perfect theoretical knowledge of physical behavior, to predict all future states of that person's brain. Thus, whatever actions the person takes, whatever they say, etc, is fully predicted by us beforehand. Now, let us ask the question, is that person self aware? We still cannot answer the question, despite perfect physical knowledge. All we can describe are the physical states of the brain, and future states -- we cannot know if the "brain" has a perspective of its own -- if it experiences "awareness". All we can say is that the physical system is in a certain state, and certain inputs through the senses necessarily cause other states. Again, this shows that self-awareness is not a physical attribute at all.

If it's still not clear, suppose you are the scientist with the perfect machine, and the perfect knowledge of all past and future physical states.

How would you prove that the being in the chair really was experiencing anything? When you pinch the being, a bunch of particles rattle around in the brain. Perhaps these rattling particles cause particles in the mouth and esophagus area to make noise. How do you know for certain that this actually corresponds to an awareness experiencing pain? You can't, because all you have is external observation.

You can only know for certain if you ARE that being. Yet, all physical attributes are, by their definition, observable externally. Therefore, the attribute is not physical.



BTW, self-awareness (more developed consciousness) too can be scientifically observed; by the different interactions of dogs and higher primates with mirrors.

I could easily design a robot that interacts with a mirror in whatever way you want. That wouldn't prove that it's self aware, or experiences anything.

The most fundamental entity in my universe is my own mind. Any "physical observation" I make, if you think about it, is really a particular type of experience of my mind. To throw away all observation about the nature of reality, but the narrow type of experience that fits the definition of "scientific" is silly -- and to then try to undercut the existence of the mind/experiencer/observer, as distinct from the experience/observation itself, is even more silly.

[idirtify]

I'm only arguing for the existence of the nonphysical at this point. Let's not worry about God, at least for now.



Self awareness is not a scientific observation, nor could you prove scientifically that I experience awareness. As far as you know, I may only be a completely unaware particularly complex collection of bouncing inanimate particles.

You're responding viscerally to the topic of my arguments, without addressing the substance of them. I'd appreciate if you would think carefully about this, at least read all of hypnagogue's points, and all of my responses (it's only the first 10 posts). As I said to him on the second post, this warrants more thought than you're giving it.

Here's a thought experiment (from post #8):

Here's another thought experiment (post #6):

Here's another way to think about it:

Scientific observation is a particular type of experience of the mind. Now, we have a large number of experiences which are very predictable, and described well by a few laws which we call "physics". These types of experiences are called "matter".

But, if matter is a particular set of experiences of the mind (observations), which is described well by rules we call "physics", than to say that the mind is only matter is to say that the mind is an experience of the mind. It is circular. In other words, it is an effort to say that the "observer" is really himself only "observations" -- i.e. that the "experiencer" is really himself only "experiences" -- which reduces everything to experiences. Yet, experiences by definition require an experiencer. It's a self destroying loop.



I am not talking about consciousness as a description of how little balls bounce sometimes. I am talking about the experience of self awareness that I have, and I can only assume others have.

You know, the difference between me and a rock (well, at least, I assume rocks are not people too ;))



Interesting. So ... this "consciousness" is an attribute a person has, but it cannot be physically observed? Sounds nonphysical to me.



So, you see some physical soup floating around, and just assume that that physical mess corresponds to a conscious mind? Isn't it just as possible that the whole thing is just a bunch of mindless bouncing billiard balls?

Once again, it's not about neuroscience -- indeed, suppose the ultimate goal of all neuroscience were achieved -- we had full knowlege of physical brain behavior, and furthermore, suppose we ignore the effects of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (http://%22http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle%22) and Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions (http://%22http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect%22). That is, suppose we could combine a perfect knowledge of the physical state of a person's brain and environment with a perfect theoretical knowledge of physical behavior, to predict all future states of that person's brain. Thus, whatever actions the person takes, whatever they say, etc, is fully predicted by us beforehand. Now, let us ask the question, is that person self aware? We still cannot answer the question, despite perfect physical knowledge. All we can describe are the physical states of the brain, and future states -- we cannot know if the "brain" has a perspective of its own -- if it experiences "awareness". All we can say is that the physical system is in a certain state, and certain inputs through the senses necessarily cause other states. Again, this shows that self-awareness is not a physical attribute at all.

If it's still not clear, suppose you are the scientist with the perfect machine, and the perfect knowledge of all past and future physical states.

How would you prove that the being in the chair really was experiencing anything? When you pinch the being, a bunch of particles rattle around in the brain. Perhaps these rattling particles cause particles in the mouth and esophagus area to make noise. How do you know for certain that this actually corresponds to an awareness experiencing pain? You can't, because all you have is external observation.

You can only know for certain if you ARE that being. Yet, all physical attributes are, by their definition, observable externally. Therefore, the attribute is not physical.



I could easily design a robot that interacts with a mirror in whatever way you want. That wouldn't prove that it's self aware, or experiences anything.

The most fundamental entity in my universe is my own mind. Any "physical observation" I make, if you think about it, is really a particular type of experience of my mind. To throw away all observation about the nature of reality, but the narrow type of experience that fits the definition of "scientific" is silly -- and to then try to undercut the existence of the mind/experiencer/observer, as distinct from the experience/observation itself, is even more silly.

It’s kind foggy but it seems you are trying to describe Solipsism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism ). Nor can I tell if you are always talking about self-awareness, in terms of the capacity to be conscious of your individual self (evidenced by recognizing that the image in the mirror is YOU), or if you are sometimes talking about simple awareness (any consciousness). Anyway…

While there is no doubt that consciousness has its unique aspects (like most things do), you can’t claim that it’s the only non-physical thing (under your own definition). IOW, if you are going to claim that consciousness is non-physical, you can’t logically deny that other processes are non-physical. I mean you can’t claim that consciousness is the only process which can not be directly observed. For example: information can not be directly observed; only its representations and causes and effects – yet lots of science deals with it.

Other than that, I’m not sure what points you are trying to make. Maybe it’s me, but I can’t completely follow your train of thought. I think it would help if you would go ahead and make your connection and state your conclusion (your position). And I’d rather not have to refer to previous threads/posts. Repost/paste whatever you want, but don’t send me elsewhere to try to search for my own rebuttal.

[tremendoustie]

It’s kind foggy but it seems you are trying to describe Solipsism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism ).


I'm not a solipsist, but solipsism is not a logically disprovable thesis.

The point is, you cannot know whether a being experiences self-awareness by external (physical) observation. I think it's reasonable and useful to assume that other people also experience consciousness. But, it is only an assumption.



Nor can I tell if you are always talking about self-awareness, in terms of the capacity to be conscious of your individual self (evidenced by recognizing that the image in the mirror is YOU), or if you are sometimes talking about simple awareness (any consciousness). Anyway…

I'm not talking about any externally observable behavior. I'm talking about the fact that you are a mind, who experiences things.

It's not wrong for me to smash a rock, because it (I assume) does not experience things. It's only an inanimate mess of particles. It would be wrong for me to murder or assault you, precisely because you (I assume) do experience things, including pain.



While there is no doubt that consciousness has its unique aspects (like most things do),


Consciousness, or awareness IS the fundamental element of our reality. It's quite simply the fact that we can experience things in the first place. Part of what we experience/observe is described as a "physical" (the part coming through the senses), and part is not. It seems to me that your assumptions and conclusions are not currently in logical order.



you can’t claim that it’s the only non-physical thing (under your own definition). IOW, if you are going to claim that consciousness is non-physical, you can’t logically deny that other processes are non-physical.

Consciousness is not a "process". A process is a series of (at least in theory) physically observable deterministic or random events. Consciousness is the fact that we can experience, or observe things in the first place.



I mean you can’t claim that consciousness is the only process which can not be directly observed. For example: information can not be directly observed; only its representations and causes and effects – yet lots of science deals with it.

In the sense you're talking about it, "information", like "energy" "gravity", etc, is only a shorthand description for a particular type of observation.

If I see two massive bodies move towards each other, frequently, as well as perhaps a few other effects, I may call the set of phenomena "gravity". That doesn't mean there actually is some unseen nonphysical entity pulling them together. It's just the name I've used for the phenomena I've observed.

Similarly, if I, as an outside observer, see that when a human looks at a newspaper, book, or other set of black marks on paper, he behaves a certain special way, that's a physical observation. I can use the word "information" to describe it, or any other word I like. That doesn't mean there's actually some entity floating around called "information". It's just the word I've used.

Consciousness is different. I am not using it as a shorthand description for an observable movement of particles. It is the designation of an entity that can have experiences/observations in the first place!


Again, ANY physical attribute is defined in purely in physical terms. If I say an object is "green". I mean specifically that I observe it responding a certain way to external stimuli. The statement that, "Under all possible external observation, this object cannot be shown to be green", is an equivalent statement to "This object is not green", because "green" is only a description of a set of observations.


Consciousness does not fit this description. If I say, "that rock experiences things", or, "that person experiences things", I'm not asserting that you will be able to make some particular external observation of the rock or person. I'm describing the experience of the rock/person -- not what your experience will be in observing it. It's not determinable by physical observation, and so is not a physical attribute.


And again, to suppose that the observer can be described purely in terms of observations, is itself circular.



Other than that, I’m not sure what points you are trying to make. Maybe it’s me, but I can’t completely follow your train of thought. I think it would help if you would go ahead and make your connection and state your conclusion (your position). And I’d rather not have to refer to previous threads/posts. Repost/paste whatever you want, but don’t send me elsewhere to try to search for my own rebuttal.

My conclusion, for this part of the discussion, is that the mind, at least, cannot rightfully (or even logically) be classified as a physical entity.

Then the next question, which we haven't touched on much yet, is, "Are the only two types of causes deterministic and random, or is the mind a third type of cause?" Clearly the mind is affected by physical phenomena. I'd say it affects them as well (which would conform to our perception of reality, at least -- I want to raise my hand, and it happens).

I spent a lot of time thinking about what I wrote in the first page of that thread, at least, and stating it carefully. It's only ten posts, half of them not even mine -- I think it's fair to ask you to read it carefully, rather than asking me to rehash it here.

It really is directly relevant, I promise.

[idirtify]

I'm not a solipsist, but solipsism is not a logically disprovable thesis. snip


Your phrase “conclusion for this part of the discussion” is kind of a copout. If you can’t state your opening position/argument, you can’t expect a legitimate discussion. Typically, one first states his opening opinion and then provides support. I mean I could continue to directly rebut your points, but what’s the point? You have yet to make your main argument.

Nonetheless, your claim that the mind/consciousness is the only “non-physical” thing is too easy to refute. If gravity is “only a shorthand description for a particular type of observation” or a “set of phenomena…observed”, then so is “consciousness”. You claim consciousness is different, but you can’t show that it’s not also a perception. According to your own criteria, it is. You haven’t demonstrated how it’s anything more than the ability of big-brains to perceive the perceiver.

And your claim that the mind/consciousness is the only thing that is not uncertain is also too easy to refute. If you claim that nothing other than your own self-awareness is certain, how can you claim the certainty? IOW, questioning perceptions would include self-awareness; since awareness of the self is only another perception. IOW if you want to cast doubt on the ability of the mind to accurately perceive its environment, then logically you must also cast doubt on its ability to perceive ANYTHING – including itself.

“LOOK” at it this way. You are in essence questioning everything the mind perceives (thereby, you claim, rendering those things “physical” and/or uncertain), yet consciousness is only the mind seeing itself in the mirror. Well what’s so special about a mirror? The logic of your principles would characterize a mirror as just as physical and uncertain.

(Sorry, no time to read anything but what’s in this thread.)

[tremendoustie]

Your phrase “conclusion for this part of the discussion” is kind of a copout. If you can’t state your opening position/argument, you can’t expect a legitimate discussion. Typically, one first states his opening opinion and then provides support. I mean I could continue to directly rebut your points, but what’s the point? You have yet to make your main argument.

This is my main argument for the existence of the nonphysical. It'd be foolish to discuss the existance of God if one doesn't even believe in the existence of the nonphysical. It'd be like debating the existence of the elephant with someone who doesn't believe animals exist.

If you'd like to assume these points -- that the non-physical exists, and that the mind is a third causal agent, in addition to determinism and randomness -- I'd be happy to discuss the existence of God starting from that point.



Nonetheless, your claim that the mind/consciousness is the only “non-physical” thing is too easy to refute. If gravity is “only a shorthand description for a particular type of observation” or a “set of phenomena…observed”, then so is “consciousness”.


Not at all. Because when I assert that you are "conscious" I do not mean particular particles in your brain move a certain way (although this may be an accompanying phenomenon). I am not describing any external observation made by me of you. I mean that you are able to experience awareness -- that you are, yourself, an observer.

There are observers, and observations. When I say that you are conscious, I mean that you are an observer. As I explained, to suppose that the observer is him/herself observations is circular and flawed.



You claim consciousness is different, but you can’t show that it’s not also a perception.

Consciousness is the capability to experience perceptions. It's not, itself, a perception.



According to your own criteria, it is. You haven’t demonstrated how it’s anything more than the ability of big-brains to perceive the perceiver.


A brain is a mess of particles. When I say you are conscious, I do not mean that the mess of particles affixed to your neck move a certain way. I mean that you experience things. That if I harm you, there is a real being that experiences pain.

This is the basic difference (I assume) between you and a chair. Surely this is not difficult for you to grasp. I'm quite willing to smash an old chair, because I don't believe there's a being associated with it which experiences pain. I would not be willing to smash your body, because I believe there is.



And your claim that the mind/consciousness is the only thing that is not uncertain is also too easy to refute. If you claim that nothing other than your own self-awareness is certain, how can you claim the certainty? IOW, questioning perceptions would include self-awareness; since awareness of the self is only another perception.


Ok, I think the term "self awareness" may be tripping us up -- let's focus on awareness.

Awareness is the fact that I percieve. Sure, what I perceive could be completely different than it seems, but I certainly am experiencing perceptions. This is the attribute I am referring to.



IOW if you want to cast doubt on the ability of the mind to accurately perceive its environment, then logically you must also cast doubt on its ability to perceive ANYTHING – including itself.

It could all be some crazy hallucination, but the fact that I experience things is inescapable. Quite accurately, I could most fundamentally be called an "experiencer".

With no assumptions about the world, this is the most fundamental fact of existence. When you open your eyes for the first time, you have experiences. How you interpret them is up to you.



“LOOK” at it this way. You are in essence questioning everything the mind perceives (thereby, you claim, rendering those things “physical” and/or uncertain),


Huh? I don't follow this at all. I'm merely asserting that a physical object, by definition, is fully described by physical observations. To be physical, these perceptions/observations must occur through the senses, be repeatable by others, etc -- they meet scientific criteria. Do you dispute this?

If there were some attribute of the block which was real, but yet not determinable by any sort of external observation or test, that attribute would clearly not be physical.

Again, you're trying to define the observer as merely a bunch of bouncing particles, while a particle is only a shorthand term for a certain set of observations. It's all circular and self collapsing. An experience doesn't itself experience things.



yet consciousness is only the mind seeing itself in the mirror.


Lol, what a tangled euphemistic web this statement is. I would love to get a physicalist description of this. What do you mean by "consciousness", "mind", and "seeing"? If you're a physicalist, this sentence must reduce to a description of how inanimate particles bounce around, which itself is a shorthand description of a set of observations made by some other, external observer.

Really, please, stop and think about think about this. You never answered my question before: You've got the ultimate imaging machine, capable of fully measuring the nature, position, and velocity of all particles in a specimen instantly.

Now, describe to me how you would prove that a rock I put on your table does not correspond to a conscious being which experiences things. You can't do it. Put your freind on the table, and prove to me that this mess of particles on the table does correspond to a being that experiences things. You can't do it.

This is where the honest thinker says, "wow trem, you're right -- I cannot determine this attribute, for sure, despite perfect physical knowledge, therefore, the attribute is not physical".



Well what’s so special about a mirror? The logic of your principles would characterize a mirror as just as physical and uncertain.

Huh? You're the one who brought up the mirror. To be conscious means you experience things, it has nothing to do with mirrors as far as I'm concerned.

As I said, I could design a robot that responds to a mirror any way you want, and it wouldn't (we assume) be conscious. External behavior by a being cannot prove consciousness one way or another, because consciousness is a description of the internal experience of the being itself, or lack thereof. That's the point.



(Sorry, no time to read anything but what’s in this thread.)

I understand, but actually, if you'd read that thread, it would save us both time. It's fine if you don't respond for a week, but I'd prefer not to waste both of our time rehashing what's there.

[idirtify]

This is my main argument for the existence of the nonphysical. It'd be foolish to discuss the existance of God if one doesn't even believe in the existence of the nonphysical.

Well I certainly believe in the non-physical. As I said, lots of things are non-physical. But I do not see how this translates into “god exists”. Even if I were to concede your argument that consciousness is the only non-physical thing (although elsewhere you seem to assert that EVERYTHING is non-physical), I do not see how it would imply a god. After all, why argue for only one non-physical thing when the only point of it is to then contradict yourself and conclude “then there must be a second non-physical thing (god)”?



I am not describing any external observation made by me of you. I mean that you are able to experience awareness -- that you are, yourself, an observer.

Observations and perceptions are not only external. Plenty are “internal”. Being conscious that you are an observer/perceiver is only the observation/perception of such. Are you trying to separate the verbs “observe” / “perceive” from “experience”, or “internal experience”? Seems to me that there is no real fundamental difference, and that “internal experiences” are only perceptions of perceptions or observations of observations or perceptions of observations (or however you want to stack it); what normal people would call “thoughts” and “feelings” etc.



There are observers, and observations. When I say that you are conscious, I mean that you are an observer.

Yes, and to feel that you are an observer is just another observation.



As I explained, to suppose that the observer is him/herself observations is circular and flawed.

If it’s circular, then so are all your points about the uncertainty of external perceptions. Actually, it’s not my claim that’s circular; it’s the process of perceiving the perceiver that’s naturally circular. So it’s not “circular” as in “logical fallacy”; it’s circular as in “feedback loop”. It’s like talking about talking, or thinking about thinking, or watching an eye. IOW if I say that lots of personal philosophies come from thinking about thinking, I would not be making a circular statement; I would be making an accurate statement about a circular process.



Consciousness is the capability to experience perceptions. It's not, itself, a perception.

Prove it’s not a perception. You are trying to claim a fundamental difference for a certain perception which you call “experience” / “consciousness”, but you have yet to show any evidence. All you have done here is type a multiple redundancy. IOW the sentence would also make sense with any of the three main words interchanged:
1) “Consciousness is the capability to experience perceptions.”
2) Perception is the capability to be conscious of experience.
3) Experience is the capability to be conscious of perceptions.
4) Consciousness is the capability to perceive experience.

Try as you may, but you can not arbitrarily put a magical quality on a perception by calling it another word. It appears to resemble the attempt of religion to assert a “soul”.



A brain is a mess of particles. When I say you are conscious, I do not mean that the mess of particles affixed to your neck move a certain way.

Let’s move on from your “mess of particles” point. I haven’t even been debating that there is no such thing as “non-physical”. We are now talking about abilities (processes). While physical particles are most certainly responsible for those abilities, neither one of us are qualified to explain exactly how. But surely you are not using our lack of qualification to imply the existence of god.



I mean that you experience things. That if I harm you, there is a real being that experiences pain.

Nor have I been disagreeing with that.



This is the basic difference (I assume) between you and a chair. Surely this is not difficult for you to grasp.

You are quite correct. It is not difficult.



I'm quite willing to smash an old chair, because I don't believe there's a being associated with it which experiences pain. I would not be willing to smash your body, because I believe there is.

Yes, well this is true, but it seems to be a different argument; that human empathy and respect for other’s rights is proof of god. That would appear to be an entirely different stretch of reason. Because I do not want to be hurt, and it appears that others do not want to be hurt, and because it hurts me when I hurt others; therefore god exists?? I don’t get the connection. Since when does individual liberty and rights imply god?



Ok, I think the term "self awareness" may be tripping us up -- let's focus on awareness.

Awareness is the fact that I percieve. Sure, what I perceive could be completely different than it seems, but I certainly am experiencing perceptions. This is the attribute I am referring to.

Yes, the ability to perceive is an attribute. And your point is…? I mean the only thing you have done here is add another word to your collection. “Awareness” does not serve to invoke any more of a pedestal status than “consciousness” or “experience”.



It could all be some crazy hallucination, but the fact that I experience things is inescapable. Quite accurately, I could most fundamentally be called an "experiencer".

Your first sentence says it. According to your own logic (perception / experience) stated directly above (“what I perceive could be completely different than it seems”), the “fact” that you experience things is not necessarily any more “factual” or “inescapable” or “accurate” or “fundamental” than any other perception.



With no assumptions about the world, this is the most fundamental fact of existence. When you open your eyes for the first time, you have experiences. How you interpret them is up to you.

And how did you come to this deduction? By your perceptions.



Originally Posted by idirtify
"'LOOK' at it this way. You are in essence questioning everything the mind perceives (thereby, you claim, rendering those things “physical” and/or uncertain)"

Huh? I don't follow this at all.

Sure you do. You just reiterated it above when you said “what I perceive could be completely different than it seems”.



I'm merely asserting that a physical object, by definition, is fully described by physical observations. To be physical, these perceptions/observations must occur through the senses, be repeatable by others, etc -- they meet scientific criteria. Do you dispute this?

Sorry, I can’t follow exactly what you are asserting. While the perception/observation is not a “physical” thing itself (it’s a process), the ability to perceive is made possible by physical things. IOW physical “particles” underlie the perception process.



If there were some attribute of the block which was real, but yet not determinable by any sort of external observation or test, that attribute would clearly not be physical.


What “block”? Do you mean “thing”? If so, I think disagree.
1) how can you say it’s a real attribute if you can’t perceive it?
2) do no physical things exist before we observe them?



Again, you're trying to define the observer as merely a bunch of bouncing particles, while a particle is only a shorthand term for a certain set of observations. It's all circular and self collapsing. An experience doesn't itself experience things.

Speaking of “circular”, I’m getting dizzy. Here you seem to be claiming that the observer is not a bunch of particles, because particles are actually only observations. But since it is you who are claiming that said particles only exist as observations, it is you who forms the circle – not me. In contrast, I am claiming that particles not only underlie the observations, but are truly real and external and physical. (The fact that we CAN observe them doesn’t somehow make them less real.) Therefore if I am guilty of circular reasoning, at least my circle is not nearly as small and tight as yours. And plus, I am not defining the observer as “MERELY a bunch of bouncing particles”; but largely a result of a bunch of organized ones that allow for the abilities you often mention.



Originally Posted by idirtify
"yet consciousness is only the mind seeing itself in the mirror"

Lol, what a tangled euphemistic web this statement is.

What’s so tangled about using an analogy to explain consciousness? There are plenty of other examples. Do you reject the ability to think about thought, to talk about speech, to dream about dreams, to look into your eyes, and/or to perceive that you perceive? Regarding that last one, you appear to be doing a good amount if it right here.



I would love to get a physicalist description of this. What do you mean by "consciousness", "mind", and "seeing"? If you're a physicalist, this sentence must reduce to a description of how inanimate particles bounce around, which itself is a shorthand description of a set of observations made by some other, external observer.

I’m not using the terms any differently than we have been. Speaking of reduction, it is YOUR reduction that crunches literally EVERYTHING (but consciousness and god) down to “a set of observations”. I can only assume that your tight little circle is for the purpose of enclosing everything but consciousness (oh, and to somehow make god exist).



Really, please, stop and think about think about this. You never answered my question before: You've got the ultimate imaging machine, capable of fully measuring the nature, position, and velocity of all particles in a specimen instantly.

Now, describe to me how you would prove that a rock I put on your table does not correspond to a conscious being which experiences things. You can't do it. Put your freind on the table, and prove to me that this mess of particles on the table does correspond to a being that experiences things. You can't do it.

This is where the honest thinker says, "wow trem, you're right -- I cannot determine this attribute, for sure, despite perfect physical knowledge, therefore, the attribute is not physical".

Your question eludes me. What “rock” and what “table”? Are you putting the rock under the imaging machine? Is the rock the “specimen”? What do you mean “CORRESPOND to a conscious being…”? Do you mean they are both made up of things like atoms? If so, so what? What does it prove that relates to your argument? What do you mean by “attribute”? Please write more descriptive and linear and cohesive.



Huh? You're the one who brought up the mirror. To be conscious means you experience things, it has nothing to do with mirrors as far as I'm concerned.

If it has nothing to do with it, then you should find it easy to rebut my logic that explains how consciousness is perception of perception. Are you ready to claim that it is not possible to perceive that you perceive?



As I said, I could design a robot that responds to a mirror any way you want, and it wouldn't (we assume) be conscious. External behavior by a being cannot prove consciousness one way or another,

While I agree that a trained robot would not “prove consciousness one way or another”, I don’t believe I ever implied otherwise. But it certainly would not disprove that consciousness is perceiving perception. But again, we are getting confused over self-aware-consciousness (higher consciousness of big brains) and mere consciousness. If the robot receives any sensory input, you can’t confidently assert that it doesn’t have consciousness. Smaller brains have consciousness, but probably not self-aware-consciousness. IOW, their “smaller” consciousness may not so “consciously” perceive that they perceive.



because consciousness is a description of the internal experience of the being itself, or lack thereof. That's the point.

Your claim uses “description” where “perception” would obviously have been the better choice. (BTW I am not disputing that consciousness is internal.)



I understand, but actually, if you'd read that thread, it would save us both time. It's fine if you don't respond for a week, but I'd prefer not to waste both of our time rehashing what's there.

Ahh yes, wouldn’t it be nice if we could all win our debates by just telling our opponents to “go there and read that”. OTOH it wouldn’t be very good for discussion forums, would it? Take my advice: if your opinions have merit, they become easier to express with every attempt. If not, they will become harder. In that regard, practice and repetition can be very revealing.