Prophetic Failures

[Led Zeppelin]

Not 'from a person' - just 'unable to experience love'.

Such a person wouldn't selectively not experience love from a single individual, but would not be able to sense it from any person.

But that's not what you're doing at all.

What you're doing is attempting to liken disbelief in your god to some form of illness.

Now, I think I've dismissed that robustly enough and already stated that if this is the kind of exchange you want, then we can do it and you won't come out well in the exchange. But I was hoping you might have changed your ways TNTD and stopped using the internet as a platform to espouse your unexplored bigotry. As it appears you are intent on likening non-belief in your god to some form of disability, then you have made your bed.

Factually, when we look around human history, it's those with imaginary friends - particularly those who believe their imaginary friends tell them what to do - who are considered mentally deranged and in need either of pity and compassion, or of isolation to protect them and other members of society. So that's you then, right? Here's where I liken your belief to that form of derangement. You're a dangerously deranged individual who probably should be locked away for his own good.

That the kind of discussion you want?

No? Then fucking stow your bigotry.

Not 'from a person' - just 'unable to experience love'.

Such a person wouldn't selectively not experience love from a single individual, but would not be able to sense it from any person.

But that's not what you're doing at all.

What you're doing is attempting to liken disbelief in your god to some form of illness.

Now, I think I've dismissed that robustly enough and already stated that if this is the kind of exchange you want, then we can do it and you won't come out well in the exchange. But I was hoping you might have changed your ways TNTD and stopped using the internet as a platform to espouse your unexplored bigotry. As it appears you are intent on likening non-belief in your god to some form of disability, then you have made your bed.

Factually, when we look around human history, it's those with imaginary friends - particularly those who believe their imaginary friends tell them what to do - who are considered mentally deranged and in need either of pity and compassion, or of isolation to protect them and other members of society. So that's you then, right? Here's where I liken your belief to that form of derangement. You're a dangerously deranged individual who probably should be locked away for his own good.

That the kind of discussion you want?

No? Then fucking stow your bigotry.

Well, I dont know what you want me to say. I think you have been kinda moving goal posts a bit, eventually there will be a answer you don't like.

First you ask for an example of part of reallity that is not physical, then you ask for an example of something that is like not physical and cannot be experienced and the you ask me for an example of something that is not physical that exists independently of anything physical.

The point I am trying to make is that we know that is possible for parts of reality that exist that cannot be experience because the viewer required to experience them might have a mental illness. I also dont think that either one of us are excluded from the possibility of having a mental illness.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Somebody responds to something you've said that seems so far wide of being a response to what you've said that you sometimes doubt your own sanity.

That is the risk one runs when talking to someone who is arguing in bad faith.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well, I dont know what you want me to say. I think you have been kinda moving goal posts a bit, eventually there will be a answer you don't like.

No, it's just that you can't actually substantiate your position.

You talked about 'non-physical reality' so I asked you to provide an example - the example you gave was 'love'.

I then showed how love is a behavior of a physical brain, is wholly dependent on that physical brain, and is similar to other behaviors of that physical brain. The argument thereby being that love is the product of a physical brain and therefore the existence of love is predicated on the physical. Plausibly, you could've argued against that and either shown me wrong, or criticized the argument by showing how it was false.

Your actual response was to start making assertions about God, another non-physical reality you contend exists in the absence of any evidence to substantiate your claim.

First you ask for an example of part of reallity that is not physical, then you ask for an example of something that is like not physical and cannot be experienced and the you ask me for an example of something that is not physical that exists independently of anything physical.

This is a completely false rendition of what I said.

At no point ever have I asked you to provide me with an example of something that cannot be experienced - that's just nonsensical, and definitely not something I'd say. Quite the contrary in fact, I actually clearly stated the opposite:

For clarity, the term 'empirical' necessarily includes 'experience'.

I am similarly not asking you to provide an example of something that's not physical which exists independently of anything physical, rather you need to actually establish that whatever example you give isn't predicated on the physical in order to exemplify the contention you made. Otherwise, you've just simply not met your burden of proof and your argument has been shown to be without sensible foundation.

The point I am trying to make is that we know that is possible for parts of reality that exist that cannot be experience because the viewer required to experience them might have a mental illness. I also dont think that either one of us are excluded from the possibility of having a mental illness.

I cannot parse what this argument is meant to show.

Parts of reality can only be perceived by those with a mental illness and perhaps everyone's mentally ill? And this is relevant to you producing an example of non-physical reality?

I'm afraid I'm not even convinced you know what you're talking about.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Exactly.

I am not lying to you when I say that there is a God
I am not lying to you when I say that I believe there is a God

The second one is entirely unproblematic. I don't generally engage in the habit of considering people who say they believe in God to be lying. There's no obligation from me for them to justify the claim that they believe: I accept it.

I've been meaning for the longest time to do a write-up of this.

Sagan's dictum does the rounds a lot, but it's so often misunderstood that I think there must be 2,000 words in it at least.

I once had a live debate about the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I had been accused of requiring a standard of evidence for god entirely different from my standard for everything else. The believer even quoted Sagan to prove it. It took me quite some time to drill down to the difference between standards of evidence and standards of acceptance. Eventually, I explained that were I to require convincing of the truth of a statement, my standard would never be any different whether the claim was finding a penny or the existence of god. The difference in acceptance arises only because one of the claims is trivial and inconsequential. I'm unlikely to make any life-changing decisions based on her claim of having found a penny. Not only do I not need to be convinced that the statement has veridical value, I'm happy to accept it arguendo at face value. The existence of god is a non-trivial claim that could easily have profound implications for my life decisions, however, and is therefore something I'm going to need to be convinced of.

OK, so maybe there isn't 2,000 words in it. lol

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I once had a live debate about the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

​

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Hang on. Let me just check something. Let me make sure I didn't say 'love and chocolate are identical in every respect...

Nope, I didn't say such a silly thing. You know how it is, though. Somebody responds to something you've said that seems so far wide of being a response to what you've said that you sometimes doubt your own sanity.

No, I never said they were the same in every way. What I said is that, from a purely biochemical perspective, the effects are indistinguishable from those of eating copious amounts of chocolate. This is a true statement, and was actually addressing your contention that love can't be tested. Not only can it be tested, we've done the tests, and we know what the results are, which is why I can state with confidence that the effects of one are indistinguishable from the effects of the other. And again, this is using technology that is readily available in any good modern hospital.

These studies have shown that the same regions of the brain, specifically the ventral tegmental area and the ventral striatum, are activated in both cases.

Sorry that your misreading of my central point led you down the garden path.

Alright. I guess what I don't understand is what is it about love that you think is different from eating chocolate, even if the biochemical effects are indistinguishable from one another. I started another thread because I just realized how far off topic this is to the OP. Maybe the mods would rather have us use a new thread? I have no idea..

new thread is Here.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Alright. I guess what I don't understand is what is it about love that you think is different from eating chocolate,...

Well, one thing is that you don't need to put it in your mouth to feel that love. A phrase I am sure would come as succor to many a teenage girl with manipulative boyfriends.

Chocolate contains a suite of chemicals - such as phenylethylamine - that induce biochemical processes in the body, including the release of dopamine and serotonin.

The difference between chocolate and love, therefore, is that the release of dopamine and serotonin isn't caused by the introduction of foreign chemical compounds for the sensation of love, but rather is regulated internally by the body via the brain responding to held memories.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Greetings,


Take a mental step back, LedZeppelin, and consider this:

What you really mean is that "I believe there is a God".

Your belief doesn't make it true.

In fact, re-read what you've posted but this time, each time you read "God", think "I believe God". See how that changes things.

Thank you Dragan Glas for taking the time to reply. I have read all of your posts. I think many people would think that this is a such a simple point that it is hardly worth stating but it sometimes seems to me like it is a point which has been so much disregarded that it could almost even result in our extinction.

But it dont think this really makes a difference here. If a person knows something is true, people can still come up with reasons not to believe him..

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, one thing is that you don't need to put it in your mouth to feel that love. A phrase I am sure would come as succor to many a teenage girl with manipulative boyfriends.

Chocolate contains a suite of chemicals - such as phenylethylamine - that induce biochemical processes in the body, including the release of dopamine and serotonin.

The difference between chocolate and love, therefore, is that the release of dopamine and serotonin isn't caused by the introduction of foreign chemical compounds for the sensation of love, but rather is regulated internally by the body via the brain responding to held memories.

I think I understand this point better now. Well done. I will try to think about it for a while and come up with a reply as soon as I can. I will do it in the new thread I started https://leagueofreason.org.uk/index.php?threads/do-non-physical-things-exist.16670/

 

[Led Zeppelin]

​

Well first of all, I don't see any reason why I can't decide for myself what I should consider to be an extraordinary claim or not. 2nd of all I don't see why atheists would could consider the claim that love is not physical to be EXTRAORDINARY!!!. I think most people would find it rather mundane.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well first of all, I don't see any reason why I can't decide for myself what I should consider to be an extraordinary claim or not.

Knock yourself out. Just don't expect other people to accept your evaluation absent damn good reason.

2nd of all I don't see why atheists would could consider the claim that love is not physical to be EXTRAORDINARY!!!. I think most people would find it rather mundane.

Why are you talking about 'atheists' again?

Can't you get past this silly prejudice?

I am not discussing with you as a representative atheist.

Atheists are not ideologically required to deny the physicality of love - will you please try and order your thoughts PRIOR to writing.

Finally, your appeal to popularity is absurd, irrelevant, self-serving, and dismissed as unworthy of even a moment's more consideration.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Alright. I guess what I don't understand is what is it about love that you think is different from eating chocolate, even if the biochemical effects are indistinguishable from one another.

I think I was pretty clear from the start, when I said 'from a purely biochemical perspective', which narrows down to precisely what was being compared, and you can take it as read that all else is excluded. The point of the interjection is that your contention that love is non-physical is false, that it can and has been tested, and that we know enough about it to be able to compare two brain states and declare them functionally identical, which blows all of your contentions about love being non-physical out of the water with such velocity that Douglas Adams might have been suspicious of another Delphinidaean exodus.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well first of all, I don't see any reason why I can't decide for myself what I should consider to be an extraordinary claim or not.

Welcome! That's what we all do. You can choose to be dumbfounded every time somebody finds a penny, or wins the lottery, or some other such mundane event, if you wish. You can choose to accept preposterous claims on no evidence at all. That's entirely your decision.

Of course, the good thing about applying some sort of standard is that it helps you trim away all the bullshit everybody's constantly trying to sell you.

2nd of all I don't see why atheists would could consider the claim that love is not physical to be EXTRAORDINARY!!!. I think most people would find it rather mundane.

Well, if appeal to the ignorant masses is what passes muster for you as a logical counter, we have much to learn, young padawan. I mean, all else aside, what does atheism have to do with this? You do know that many neuroscientists are believers, right? This has nothing to do with personal views on ontology and the afterlife, its's what the science tells us.

What most people think is only a good guide to truth in the pop culture part of the quiz. The notion of vox populi, vox dei, fails miserably on esoterica, because it's viciously subject to both prongs of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Most people think, to use a favourite example, that time runs the same for every observer. If that were true, the global positioning system would be a pipe dream. Most people think something can't be in two places at once. If that were true, we wouldn't exist, because nuclei in stars couldn't overcome the Coulomb barrier to ignite fusion. Most people think you can't walk through walls. If that were true, I wouldn't be able to talk to you about the bleeding edge of physics like this, because the technology required to deliver the power and bandwidth I have available would still occupy a structure the size of a moderate football stadium.

What most people think about any area of science is entirely irrelevant to what the science itself tells us. The claim that love is not physical IS an extraordinary claim, because it's a claim that's in direct contradiction with known science that's so well-understood that this understanding is routinely saving lives. Your claim that love is non-physical is logically equivalent to the claim that the established scientific facts are wrong. That's what makes it extraordinary, in the sense that I cannot accept your claim without extremely solid evidence that the science is wrong on this.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thank you Dragan Glas for taking the time to reply. I have read all of your posts.

You're welcome, and thank you.

I think many people would think that this is a such a simple point that it is hardly worth stating but it sometimes seems to me like it is a point which has been so much disregarded that it could almost even result in our extinction.

But it dont think this really makes a difference here. If a person knows something is true, people can still come up with reasons not to believe him..

Herein lies the problem.

There is a vast difference between believing something, and knowing something.

It is the difference between relative, and absolute knowledge, respectively.

For example, consider Pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter: 3.14159...

It doesn't matter whether the diameter of the circle is infinitesimal or infinite, so that a infinite number of universes could fit inside the circle, the ratio will always remain the same 3.14159...

We can say - with absolute certainty - that we know this to be true.

If someone says, "I know Yahweh/God/Allah/Brahma/... exists", what they really mean is "I (strongly) believe Yahweh/God/Allah/Brahma/... exists".

As I said earlier, just because someone has a very strong belief that something is true, doesn't mean it is.

Look at conspiracy theorists - they "know" that this or that is "true", when all it is is that they strongly believe this or that is true.

Can you see the difference?

With all due respect, LedZeppelin, you have a very strong belief that God exists, you don't know in the absolute sense.

This is why we can find reasons not to believe what you or others claim about the existence of a creator deity (whatever the name) or conspiracy theorists or flat-Earthers or geo-centrists or ...

Does this make sense to you?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Inspired by the above. Decided to put these on shirts.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Greetings,


You're welcome, and thank you.

Herein lies the problem.

There is a vast difference between believing something, and knowing something.

It is the difference between relative, and absolute knowledge, respectively.

For example, consider Pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter: 3.14159...

It doesn't matter whether the diameter of the circle is infinitesimal or infinite, so that a infinite number of universes could fit inside the circle, the ratio will always remain the same 3.14159...

We can say - with absolute certainty - that we know this to be true.

If someone says, "I know Yahweh/God/Allah/Brahma/... exists", what they really mean is "I (strongly) believe Yahweh/God/Allah/Brahma/... exists".

As I said earlier, just because someone has a very strong belief that something is true, doesn't mean it is.

Look at conspiracy theorists - they "know" that this or that is "true", when all it is is that they strongly believe this or that is true.

Can you see the difference?

With all due respect, LedZeppelin, you have a very strong belief that God exists, you don't know in the absolute sense.

This is why we can find reasons not to believe what you or others claim about the existence of a creator deity (whatever the name) or conspiracy theorists or flat-Earthers or geo-centrists or ...

Does this make sense to you?

Kindest regards,

James

Yes, I think this make sense to me. Just off hand I would say that a circle will always equal D x 3.14159.. because this is how we define a circle. Also I would say that if God exists then this would not be something I have just guessed at random and was never really sure of. I think it would be fair to say that I knew God existed all this time.

But these are both things which I admit dont really help my argument anyway.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Welcome! That's what we all do. You can choose to be dumbfounded every time somebody finds a penny, or wins the lottery, or some other such mundane event, if you wish. You can choose to accept preposterous claims on no evidence at all. That's entirely your decision.

Of course, the good thing about applying some sort of standard is that it helps you trim away all the bullshit everybody's constantly trying to sell you.

Well, if appeal to the ignorant masses is what passes muster for you as a logical counter, we have much to learn, young padawan. I mean, all else aside, what does atheism have to do with this? You do know that many neuroscientists are believers, right? This has nothing to do with personal views on ontology and the afterlife, its's what the science tells us.

What most people think is only a good guide to truth in the pop culture part of the quiz. The notion of vox populi, vox dei, fails miserably on esoterica, because it's viciously subject to both prongs of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Most people think, to use a favourite example, that time runs the same for every observer. If that were true, the global positioning system would be a pipe dream. Most people think something can't be in two places at once. If that were true, we wouldn't exist, because nuclei in stars couldn't overcome the Coulomb barrier to ignite fusion. Most people think you can't walk through walls. If that were true, I wouldn't be able to talk to you about the bleeding edge of physics like this, because the technology required to deliver the power and bandwidth I have available would still occupy a structure the size of a moderate football stadium.

What most people think about any area of science is entirely irrelevant to what the science itself tells us. The claim that love is not physical IS an extraordinary claim, because it's a claim that's in direct contradiction with known science that's so well-understood that this understanding is routinely saving lives. Your claim that love is non-physical is logically equivalent to the claim that the established scientific facts are wrong. That's what makes it extraordinary, in the sense that I cannot accept your claim without extremely solid evidence that the science is wrong on this.

Alright. Well I think I have said everything I wanted to say. Even though I still strongly suspect that God does exist, I have to admit I am not able to keep up with all of the input that you guys have given so far.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Yes, I think this make sense to me. Just off hand I would say that a circle will always equal D x 3.14159.. because this is how we define a circle.

The circumference of a circle is D x 3.14159..., not the circle itself.

Also I would say that if God exists then this would not be something I have just guessed at random and was never really sure of. I think it would be fair to say that I knew God existed all this time.

As I and others have attempted to point out, you believe God exists - you don't know.

But these are both things which I admit dont really help my argument anyway.

True.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Just off hand I would say that a circle will always equal D x 3.14159.. because this is how we define a circle.

This is pretty much backwards.

Let's look at the earliest iteration of how we define a circle, shall we?

"A circle is a plane figure bounded by one curved line, and such that all straight lines drawn from a certain point within it to the bounding line, are equal. The bounding line is called its circumference and the point, its centre."

Not seeing many mentions of π in there.

In fact, we've been defining circles with wild abandon since prehistory (probably sometime around the invention of the wheel; geddit?).

It's really unsurprising that our ancestors would have seen certain shapes as special, and what could be more special than a circle?

Anyhoo, our conception of π is a bit funny. I've actually been researching some of this for a post about the limits of knowledge. Are you even aware that π was treated as a movable quantity by Leonhard Euler? In some instances, he's clearly talking about π as we understand it, but in others, he's just as clearly using π for other values.

In case you're wondering why this is relevant, Euler, and those after him who defined and expanded π, are the source of the knowledge required to make your definition factually correct. Unfortunately, in order to do that, Euler et al would have had to have preceded the definition of a circle. Euler was late by only a few thousand years. Not a huge error in cosmic or geoogical terms but...

 

[Deleted member 619]

In case @AronRa is still watching this thread, I dropped a comment on your new vid (liking the new series).

I cracked up at 'metal is the best form of rock'.

Anyhoo, I'm guessing you don't see comments, but a nugget of information that you might find useful in future. You may already be aware, but there was another lie in the Lugermeister's presentation that you didn't leap on there.

The stuff about Lyell is a lie. In fact, Lyell was motivated to write Principles of Geology specifically to refute Lamarckian evolution, because he was of the opinion that, if Lamarck were correct, it rendered religion a fable, and humans animals, which he felt would lead to the moral destruction of society.

Lyell didn't hate the bible, he was attempting to defend it. Ironically, Lyell's work in refuting Lamarck made Lamarck famous where he probably wouldn't otherwise have been, and quite probably made acceptance of Darwin more palatable when it came along shortly afterward. He certainly laid the groundwork for the timescales, and possibly did more to undermine Christianity's grip on Europe even than Darwin did.