(March 5, 2019 at 9:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 7:02 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: It's already been explained to you MULTIPLE times why agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. That you refuse to recognize this is your problem, not mine. For all intents and purposes, you ARE an agnostic atheist. Whether or not you choose to adopt said title is up to you.

Let's say I see a pregnant woman walking down the street.  Do I believe she's having a boy?  Do I believe she's having a girl?  Am I an a-boyist if I don't have an active belief that it's a boy?  Am I an a-girlist if I don't have an active belief that it's a girl?

No.  I know she's having a boy / girl.  My belief is not missing, it's in a state of superposition resolvable only by knowledge.

But you don't know which yet, so you withhold any beliefs regarding its gender until it is clear which one it is. So at this stage, you would be both an "a-boyist" and an "a-girlist".

Quote:This is my position on the God idea in general.  I don't lack a belief in god, or in not god.  I believe in god / not god, and which one it turns out to be depends on knowledge about a level of reality to which I don't have access.

But, put in other words, this still means you withhold belief that "God exists" until the time comes when God is made obvious to you. So in the more inclusive sense of the term "atheist", you would still be an atheist. Of course, you don't have to agree with the definition I argue for. All I'm saying is that, per this definition, you are an atheist. You need not agree with the definition, though. It's up to you how you identify yourself as.

(March 5, 2019 at 9:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 7:02 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: It's already been explained to you MULTIPLE times why agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. That you refuse to recognize this is your problem, not mine. For all intents and purposes, you ARE an agnostic atheist. Whether or not you choose to adopt said title is up to you.

Let's say I see a pregnant woman walking down the street.  Do I believe she's having a boy?  Do I believe she's having a girl?  Am I an a-boyist if I don't have an active belief that it's a boy?  Am I an a-girlist if I don't have an active belief that it's a girl?

No.  I know she's having a boy / girl.  My belief is not missing, it's in a state of superposition resolvable only by knowledge.

This is my position on the God idea in general.  I don't lack a belief in god, or in not god.  I believe in god / not god, and which one it turns out to be depends on knowledge about a level of reality to which I don't have access.

Your position sounds to me a lot like those who insist: "A photon MUST BE either a particle or a wave.  It can't be both or neither, because that's physically impossible!"  Well, you've got to wake up to the fact that not only is ambiguity real, it's the default state of reality: a photon is particle/wave until it's resolved by the act of collecting knowledge.  It's absurd to form a single belief about the mortality Schrodinger's cat; but it's perfectly reasonable to say you don't know if it's alive.

The existential truth about a philosophical God is hidden inside Schrodinger's box, and nobody has the key, or probably ever will.

I don't know what to tell you. It's been explained to you multiple times that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. That you're unable to identify whether or not you hold a belief in god or gods is a testament that you DON'T hold said belief. Meaning you are an agnostic atheist. Not sure how many times you want me to repeat this, but this is the last time I'll say it. If there's some last word you'd like to get in, feel free. I'm done explaining this to you as I've done it multiple times now, as have others.

(March 5, 2019 at 10:04 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 9:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Let's say I see a pregnant woman walking down the street. Do I believe she's having a boy? Do I believe she's having a girl? Am I an a-boyist if I don't have an active belief that it's a boy? Am I an a-girlist if I don't have an active belief that it's a girl?

No. I know she's having a boy / girl. My belief is not missing, it's in a state of superposition resolvable only by knowledge.

But you don't know which yet, so you withhold any beliefs regarding its gender until it is clear which one it is. So at this stage, you would be both an "a-boyist" and an "a-girlist".

Quote:This is my position on the God idea in general. I don't lack a belief in god, or in not god. I believe in god / not god, and which one it turns out to be depends on knowledge about a level of reality to which I don't have access.

But, put in other words, this still means you withhold belief that "God exists" until the time comes when God is made obvious to you. So in the more inclusive sense of the term "atheist", you would still be an atheist. Of course, you don't have to agree with the definition I argue for. All I'm saying is that, per this definition, you are an atheist. You need not agree with the definition, though. It's up to you how you identify yourself as.

I appreciate you drawing this out for him, but SEVERAL people have explained this to him multiple times in the thread and he keeps on trying to create these weird hypothetical positions to prove his point; which obviously fail.

You have more patience than I, sir. I for one, am checking out of this thread, for now.

(March 5, 2019 at 9:58 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: The existential truth about any god not only is not hidden, but as it's undefined, does not even merit any position with respect to it.
It's (the idea) nothing but acculturation and a bad habit.  
The idea has no more value than that of Pink Sparkly Unicorns.

Yeah, maybe.  It depends on what value depends for you.  I'd like very much to know why there is mind rather than a lack of it, for example-- or why anything exists at all.

Is there value in thinking about this stuff, or speculating?  Not in the sense that you'll ever get a definitive answer, and not in the sense that you'll have some advantage in putting food on the table.

Pink Sparkly Unicorns have little interest for me.  But the philosophical quantity or entity which allows for existence-- that's fundamentally interesting, without regard to its value beyond having something deep to think about.

---

(March 5, 2019 at 10:18 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: I don't know what to tell you. It's been explained to you multiple times that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. That you're unable to identify whether or not you hold a belief in god or gods is a testament that you DON'T hold said belief. Meaning you are an agnostic atheist. Not sure how many times you want me to repeat this, but this is the last time I'll say it. If there's some last word you'd like to get in, feel free. I'm done explaining this to you as I've done it multiple times now, as have others.

"It's been explained to you."

A bit condescending isn't it? I understand what you and the others have said, and I disagree with that model of the relationship between belief and knowledge. I don't think talking about beliefs I lack is a useful position-- and I don't agree that my own state of belief is properly represented by your semantic.

At this point, I have to ask you what your motivation here is. I identify as agnostic, and I can explain (and have) why I prefer not to use the term agnostic atheist. What's your prize here, bud? Why does pigeonholing me into your semantic matter so much to you?

(March 5, 2019 at 10:18 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 9:58 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: The existential truth about any god not only is not hidden, but as it's undefined, does not even merit any position with respect to it.
It's (the idea) nothing but acculturation and a bad habit.  
The idea has no more value than that of Pink Sparkly Unicorns.

Yeah, maybe.  It depends on what value depends for you.  I'd like very much to know why there is mind rather than a lack of it, for example-- or why anything exists at all.

Is there value in thinking about this stuff, or speculating?  Not in the sense that you'll ever get a definitive answer, and not in the sense that you'll have some advantage in putting food on the table.

Pink Sparkly Unicorns have little interest for me.  But the philosophical quantity or entity which allows for existence-- that's fundamentally interesting, without regard to its value beyond having something deep to think about.

---

There is no such thing as "mind". What there are, are brains and brain processes, and they exist, because they promote evolutionary survival. 
Why anything exists at all is a Physics problem. Not a god problem. Same old bad habit at work.
Without healthy functioning brains, in every single case, there is not one instance of "mind". 
The fact you don't have an answer to something never justifies jumping to "well maybe god done it", whether you call that an "unknown in a box" or an "entity".
A philosophical entity would have to itself exist, therefore to say that one "allows for existence'' is not only meaningless,
but impossible, as it would have had to create the Reality it requires itself to exist, (and that's one of the insurmountable problems that makes ANY god incoherent). Existence is not nothing.

(March 5, 2019 at 11:05 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: There is no such thing as "mind". What there are, are brains and brain processes, and they exist, because they promote evolutionary survival. 
Why anything exists at all is a Physics problem. Not a god problem. Same old bad habit at work.
Without healthy functioning brains, in every single case, there is not one instance of "mind". 
The fact you don't have an answer to something never justifies jumping to "well maybe god done it", whether you call that an "unknown in a box" or an "entity".
A philosophical entity would have to itself exist, therefore to say that one "allows for existence'' is not only meaningless,
but impossible, as it would have had to create the Reality it requires itself to exist, (and that's one of the insurmountable problems that makes ANY god incoherent). Existence is not nothing.

I'm pretty sure there IS a thing such as mind, since I'm capable of subjective experience.

As for brains and minds-- what, exactly, are your criteria for determining what physical systems do or don't have "mind"? If I bring in a collection of material into Bucky Ball's laboratory, how will you determine whether it does or doesn't constitute an instance of "mind"?

(March 5, 2019 at 11:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 5, 2019 at 11:05 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: There is no such thing as "mind". What there are, are brains and brain processes, and they exist, because they promote evolutionary survival. 
Why anything exists at all is a Physics problem. Not a god problem. Same old bad habit at work.
Without healthy functioning brains, in every single case, there is not one instance of "mind". 
The fact you don't have an answer to something never justifies jumping to "well maybe god done it", whether you call that an "unknown in a box" or an "entity".
A philosophical entity would have to itself exist, therefore to say that one "allows for existence'' is not only meaningless,
but impossible, as it would have had to create the Reality it requires itself to exist, (and that's one of the insurmountable problems that makes ANY god incoherent). Existence is not nothing.

I'm pretty sure there IS a thing such as mind, since I'm capable of subjective experience.

As for brains and minds-- what, exactly, are your criteria for determining what physical systems do or don't have "mind"?  If I bring in a collection of material into Bucky Ball's laboratory, how will you determine whether it does or doesn't constitute an instance of "mind"?

Nope. Your subjective experiences are your brain interpreting what you experience. Sensory input, referenced to learned memory. No mystery there. 
I see you actually know nothing about neuro-science. The concept of "mind" is unnecessary. 

YOU are the one claiming you know there are "minds". You get to provide the evidence for them. You can't even define the word. 
You have NOT ONE instance of a mind at work, in the absence of a healthy brain, AND we have countless examples of humans with healthy functioning brains, (what I assume you would call a mind) which, when injured or diseased, stop working and poof ... no more "mind". 
"Mind" is a long outdated word and concept, used by people with no knowledge of neuro-science.
Neurology and neuro-science knows what parts of the brain are responsible for its various functions. It's entirely physical. No woo-woo "mind" needed.

I have no criteria for a "mind". The concept has no meaning. A "mind" might be "the things that brains do".
There is not one instance of what USED to be called a mind, functioning in the absence of a healthy brain, and you cannot come up with one.

(March 5, 2019 at 11:51 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Nope. Your subjective experiences are your brain interpreting what you experience. Sensory input, referenced to learned memory. No mystery there. 
I see you actually know nothing about neuro-science. The concept of "mind" is unnecessary. 

YOU are the one claiming you know there are "minds". You get to provide the evidence for them. You can't even define the word. 

I don't need to define it. I just need to get out of bed in the morning, realize that I'm aware, and wonder why a universe with nothing but deterministic material objects and interactions would have mind as a property, under any system of organization, rather than not having it.

If you think mind isn't real, then I have to say that your motivations for typing on an internet forum are a little puzzling.

Quote:You have NOT ONE instance of a mind at work, in the absence of a healthy brain, AND we have countless examples of humans with healthy functioning brains, (what I assume you would call a mind) which, when injured or diseased, stop working and poof ... no more "mind". 
"Mind" is a long outdated word and concept, used by people with no knowledge of neuro-science.
Neurology and neuro-science knows what parts of the brain are responsible for its various functions. It's entirely physical. No woo-woo "mind" needed.

I have no criteria for a "mind". The concept has no meaning. A "mind" might be "the things that brains do".
There is not one instance of what USED to be called a mind, functioning in the absence of a healthy brain, and you cannot come up with one.

You toe the party line loudly enough, to be sure, but what you haven't done is explain how you would determine that any physical structure or function would allow for subjective awareness. Here's where I'm at, and you can tell me where our opinions diverge:

1) I know mind exists, because I experience ideas and feelings.
2) I believe that other minds exists, because I'm a person, and other people (for the most part) seem to act like I do in certain situations.
3) I know that brains exist, and that the human mind has a very close connection to the brain.
4) I do not know how the brain or any other physical system can allow for subjective experience.
5) I do not know why a supposedly deterministic material universe would have something like mind at all.

Unless, in your pointing to the brain, you can demonstrate on what level of organization mind supervenes, I do not know whether the elements of mind supervene on the entire brain, or certain kinds of information, or certain chemistry, or whether panpsychism is true. If panpsychism is true, then I would be tempted to say that the Universe itself represents both a massive mind AND a massive body, and I'd say that this would be so close to religious concepts of God that you could sensibly call it that.

I long concluded that 'the mind"as often used to mean 'personality' 'awareness',"sentience', 'life force' 'spirit" or "soul', and existing seperate from the brain, is nonsense.

It seems clear to me, that what is called "mind" is no more than the dynamic of the living brain. Simplest scientific proof: harm the brain, harm the person, harm 'the mind'.

Electroshock therapy still used to treat depressives unresponsive to drug therapy. Frontal lobotomies were used until recent years to treat patients prone to uncontrolled violence. an unfortunate side effect was the destruction of the person. Most famous case I cant think of is that of Elizabeth Kennedy, sister of President Kennedy.

I also have regular contact with two people who suffered brain damage as the result of a car accident. One has trouble walking and talking. Both have experienced a personality change

The philosophical attempt to deal with the body/mind dichotomy is called monism. This question has never really been resolved. I see my own position a the most rational choice, but I'm agnostic; I can't claim to know with any certainty . I may be wrong.

@bennyboy

I enjoy both sides of this debate every time we have it here. I’m wondering; is there any reason or evidence that indicates consciousness, or subjective experience as we understand it could not follow complex information processing?