Pleasure and Joy

[Harris]

A thief sees every other person with the eyes of a thief only.

Tautological and meaningless.

YEAH!

Is it then correct then energy is the self-consciousness? Perhaps, our food is our self-consciousness!

No - brain function is self-consciousness. Didn't I just say that?

You said:

“That would be the food you eat - that provides the energy to keep your brain functioning.”

So decide whether it is food or energy, which is required for brain to function is consciousness or is it the brain functioning that is consciousness. By the way what about the people who are in coma? They are getting the food, they are getting the required energy for the functioning of their brains, and their brains function to keep them alive. Do you think people in coma have consciousness?

So, what is your logical reasoning for being Nonsensical outside the universe?

You are being nonsensical within the universe - so you can be nonsensical outside the universe.

You are showing your back to me.

Who don’t agree?

Who does??

I said everybody agreed. That was the answer to your question “Who Does?”. I am still without the answer for “Who Don’t?”

Here we are talking about the origin of Universe itself, not about its components.

And Unoverse is defined in such a way to include its origin as a component.

Singularity had no components at T = 0. This is what science says. So, any answer would not automatically make that entity a part of the universe at T = 0.

My question remains unanswered:

If there is “No Nothingness” then from where the roots of this universe grew?

So, on what the universe is depending?

Nothing.

Can you prove existence of “Nothingness”?

Agreed.

Then stop with the strawman.

Interesting person you are.

universe is not the outcome of chance, not of Nothingness, and for you God don’t exist then what is its cause?

You would find it unfortunate, but theist did most of the Intellectual Hardship not atheist. Check out some history books.

So you mean they get intellectually lazy only when it comes to the origin of the universe?

You cannot prove “Nothingness”
You agree it is not caused by chance &

You don’t have any substitute to God.

So who is lazy?

Today all Atheist who are supporting Multiverse model are in fact those who are in supporting the idea that universe is eternal in the infinite past.

You are confusing different positions here.

What is the confusing aspect here?

13.77 billion Years, is a scientific speculation, not a scientific fact.

Nope, it is a fact.

It cannot be a fact simply because science has not yet discovered the boundaries of this universe. Means science is still discovering new galaxies and objects in the furthest horizons of this universe.

Quran gives a clue how universe came into being. See the following verses:

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 30-

Here Quran is not elaborating on what that unit of creation was but main idea is, universe began from a single unit of creation. You may name that as singularity or anything else but the model of Big Bang theory, which is the most consistent model compared to all other models of universe, is in perfect match with this verse of Quran.

1,400 years ago, there was no one around who might have thought how the universe came into existence. This is yet another great example.

Not really - it was plagiarized from Vedic Hinduism. You see, in Hinduism there is the concept called "Golden Egg" - the unmanifest form of the Universe containing the totality of existence. According to Hinduism, it manifested billions of years ago - i.e. took form as the current universe - and that is the closest religious model of Big-Bang. It even got the time-scale right and it did so a thousand years before your Mohammad copied that information.

This response is an obvious exhibit of your lack of knowledge on the subject. It is an excellent demonstration of your sly desire to condemn Quran. Your arguments are not based on knowledge rather on your personal preferences only. Target of my main essay “Joy and Pleasure” are the people somewhat like you.

I have gone through your discourse with other members in this thread. There also I found similar pattern of your tactics, which you are applying, over my reasoning in a bitter way. I also found you to be heavily inconsistent in keeping your statements. When I gave quote on the BAD FAITH from

Page 48
Being and Nothingness
Jean-Paul Sartre

my intension was to highlight this inconsistency in the statements of the people.

The interesting thing, which I found after reading your tussle with others in this thread, is you seem to copying opinions of Daniel C. Dennett from his book “Consciousness Explained”.

In the preface of this book, Dennett wrote:

“I think I can sketch an outline of the solution, a theory of consciousness that gives answers (or shows how to find the answers) to the questions that have been just as baffling to philosophers and scientists as to laypeople. …

… I’m sure there are still plenty of mistakes in the theory I will offer here, and I hope they are bold ones, for then they will provoke better answers by others.”

This statement is a clear indication that author is not self-assured on his presentation of consciousness in terms of evolutionary biology and computer model of mind, which you have adopted as your weapon against others.

Following are few comments made by other members of this thread, which fit in the established truths authenticated by eminent philosophers and other rational thinkers alike. Most of these comments you have tried to condemn simple based on your own likings by using spurious fictions.

(Today 11:06)bennyboy Wrote:
All those things are inferred purely based on what you can see, or believe that you COULD see, if you chose to go do it yourself.

All those things are based on what I can see - evidence of existence, though not existence itself - and its the same for consciousness. And like consciousness, I cannot directly see the black holes or the dinosaurs or the crime being committed - all I have to go on is the evidence.

bennyboy Wrote:
I accept that the brain takes in light and processes touch, sound, etc. I accept that brains result in behaviors. I do not accept that any of these processes necessarily indicates actual experience. This must be assumed.

Only if you ignore any and all behaviors that require experience to occur. Simple processing of external stimuli would result in one set of behavior - such a flinching from touch or pupils contracting from light. Processing of this process - which is what experience is - results in a whole different set of behavior. You cannot answer any personal questions (why did you pick a banana instead of an apple, which do you like better - chocolate or vanilla?) without there being actual experience.

bennyboy Wrote:
As for the consequence you have envisaged:
For machines to simulate human behavior without actual experience would be, in my opinion, impossible. A great deal of human behavior is contingent upon personal desires, knowledge, beliefs and past experience - all of which require actual subjective awareness. Replicating these without that awareness would not be possible.

ChadWooters:
A couple advantages of dualism are as follows:

Dualism does not conflate neuroscience with materialism. One is a science, the other is a philosophy.

Physical phenomena, in themselves, have no inherent meaning. Dualism provides a place, absent in materialism, for irreducible qualities like qualia and intentionality.

Unlike materialism, dualism affirms that the subjective contents of mental states have explanatory relevance while avoiding both epiphenomenalism and over-determination. This allows natural selection to reward rationality.

How is any of this an advantage?

Existence of a logical and rational view of reality requires that there be no conflict between science and philosophy. What you call conflation is in fact consistency.

Qualities like qualia and intentionality do not need to be irreducible for physical phenomena to have objective (not inherent) meaning. There is a place for them within materialism, just not a place that regards them as irreducible. And the meaning and value assigned to physical phenomena by a consciousness is not diminished by consciousness itself being a physical phenomenon.

Unlike materialism, the affirmation of subjective contents of mental states given within dualism itself relies on inexplicable and unprovable premises. Whereas materialism affirms the explanatory relevance of subjective states while satisfactorily explaining the states themselves.

ChadWooters
You have one thing, an instance of consciousness. It has two properties. The first is a physical brain-state. The second property is feeling. Which property is necessary and which is accidental? You must choose.

bennyboy
When you know what you want to believe, and conflate confirmation bias with an actual scientific process, you are not pitting science against philosophy. You are pitting your personal truthiness against BOTH science AND philosophy.

bennyboy
you see something, and you explain it. Sometimes, you can't see what causes a property-- then you must infer (or downright guess) what causes it. But in none of these cases do you start with an observable and sufficient cause of observable property X, and start guessing how it's the cause of unobservable property Y.

bennyboy
My knowledge is based on direct experience, not on ideas about the underlying nature of things which get replaced every hundred years.

We know, “Nothing” comes from “Nothingness” yet we are denying this fact. Negation of a fact does not make someone an honest person. It is in reality contrary to honesty.

We don't know that actually. Evidence suggests that something may come form nothingness.

Which evidence “Thermodynamics”, “Quantum Physics”, or something else?

All your arguments and all other arguments you are about to make have already been defeated here.

Did Hawkins, Dawkins, and Krauss congratulate you on your victory?

Earth is following path of its motion as consequence of this fine-tuning of fundamental forces. We are talking about 1 cm variation but scientist are talking in terms of 10 to the power 40 (depending what is the case under consideration).

You've already been proven wrong on this point.

No one has proven anything all are saying fine-tuning does not exist or giving me links to some strange web sites. That is all what I am listening.

From now on, every time yo make a fine-tuning argument, I'd be pointing to that thread.

Instead of pushing me to some long thread better, you present your own argument let it be from your favourite thread on this forum.

There are not principles or laws in the universe. The universe works the way it works because it is in its nature. We conclude laws and principles based on how it works.

Okay! So how this nature entered into the universe? Perhaps, universe set that nature for itself. If it is the case then universe is God. However, theologians say God is eternal and we know universe is not eternal therefore this argument fails.

Maybe you have better idea from where nature entered with all its working laws in this universe of which we are also part and we know our lives depends over these laws of nature.

Logic of Grand design and fine-tuning is loud enough to speak about intelligent Being behind the cause of the universe.

Yup - false claims often need to be loud.

Correct! So far, you have demonstrated it well.

You have obscenely rejected first two premises without giving literary support to your contentions.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I argue:

1. Universe cannot be without a cause
2. Cause of the universe is God

1. Not proven. You haven't established that universe needs a cause.
2. Invalid conclusion.

a. You have rejected God
b. You cannot prove “Nothingness” to be the cause

false dichotomy

It’s a lazy man’s way to announce others to be wrong without proper assertions. On the other hand, maybe you do not have anything to assert at all.

Therefore, if God and Nothingness are not your candidates then what is your suggestion for the cause of this universe?

I don't need to suggest anything - I'm not making any claims.

If you are not making any claims then how you are proclaiming my reasoning false. If you are not claiming that means you don’t have any reason to compare with my reasoning.

---

OK let me put it this way, the quran says to not speak information about god which you don't know.


You don't know for sure that god is giving you a clue about finger prints being unique. (Since the word finger prints isn't used, neither is the word unique, in fact it's talking about a whole other topic and just includes the word fingertips)

So since you don't know the mind of god, why are you claiming to know god is giving you clues about the uniqueness of fingerprints? Why are you telling us this and why are you so sure?

Let me ask you that question.

True no one knows what God’s intensions are. My reasoning totally based upon what information Quran is giving in form of clues and what I learned from nature. I used the analytical approach to find the logic. I addressed this fingertips issue several times. I ask you to check out my previous post to you as well as to other members.

---

There is a wish in every person to be respectful.

I found this amusing coming from someone that vomited a wall of text.

Vomiting is not an intentional act. It is normally caused by some kind of poisoning, but spitting is what I am getting often from this wall of text right into my eyes. I have not vomited yet as my health is good but I am no superman.