Chad, you said a mouthful, and I responded with as much. You gave me a single sentence response. I can only assume that this sentence is all that keeps you from revising your position. Is this true?
If science can somehow quantify categories of subjective quality, then you will concede that God is an incoherent concept?
Surely not. You seem plagued by a distortion of perspectives. If I move my arm, the third person understanding can explain the neurophysiological processes that occurred within the neurons and synapses that sent signals through my nerves and causing the muscles in my arms to contract and cause movement. The first person perspective is more or less a bystander that experiences these phenomena and takes complete credit for the result. But that is just the effect. The cause lies within the 3rd person perspective. If we examine only the aspect of effect that is perceived in experience, it appears to be unanswerable, but this is only because we are not examining the sum of the events. Only certain aspects that make up the sum. I make continued comparisons to computers because I find the parallel to be quite comparable. If we allow ourselves to imagine and synthesize the perspective of an avatar controlled by a 3rd party, then it is easy to understand why this avatar would be persuaded to take credit for it's physiological actions. It's because it would only account for the perspective it understands, and be unable to factor in ours that controls and explains it. While the first person perspective adds an interesting dimension to the entire account of what takes place, it does not create an additional dimension for which it occurs. It's only perspective that changes. At the root, it's all very much physical.
If science can somehow quantify categories of subjective quality, then you will concede that God is an incoherent concept?
Surely not. You seem plagued by a distortion of perspectives. If I move my arm, the third person understanding can explain the neurophysiological processes that occurred within the neurons and synapses that sent signals through my nerves and causing the muscles in my arms to contract and cause movement. The first person perspective is more or less a bystander that experiences these phenomena and takes complete credit for the result. But that is just the effect. The cause lies within the 3rd person perspective. If we examine only the aspect of effect that is perceived in experience, it appears to be unanswerable, but this is only because we are not examining the sum of the events. Only certain aspects that make up the sum. I make continued comparisons to computers because I find the parallel to be quite comparable. If we allow ourselves to imagine and synthesize the perspective of an avatar controlled by a 3rd party, then it is easy to understand why this avatar would be persuaded to take credit for it's physiological actions. It's because it would only account for the perspective it understands, and be unable to factor in ours that controls and explains it. While the first person perspective adds an interesting dimension to the entire account of what takes place, it does not create an additional dimension for which it occurs. It's only perspective that changes. At the root, it's all very much physical.
