What God is to the Universe is what your mind is to your body

[purplepurpose]

@Silva
I'm pretty sure Jorg responded definitively to these statements in another thread, and now you're just spreading them around the boards as though it were an open question.

Sorry to say there has been no definitive response

Its not about the evidence. You, for example, like to be a servant of Gods will. And I can see the appeal of trying to live a pure life of sacrifice.

But no matter what evidence you bring there are many people who hate the idea of servitude. They see it as an attempt to take away little they have in this life for invisible goals.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's true-ish, if there -were- some Great Boss in the sky smiling down on his human plantation I wouldn;t be tripping over myself to serve it.  

Mostly, because I'm not a slave.

[bennyboy]

No, I do not believe a camera sees anything.

I wasn't asking you about your beliefs, though, was I?  I asked you if what you called seeing red was qualitatively or quantitatively different from what other matter, such as camera, is doing.  It's going to take more than "I don't believe cameras see" to respond to -that- question.  

You are asking me whether a camera does or doesn't experience things subjectively. The answer is I have know way to know whether a camera experiences anything, but I don't believe that it does so.

You already asked that question, and I already answered it.  I didn't wave at the brain at all, didn't even mention it.......strange, it's the only part of my post you -didn't- include in your quotes, and it's the very first portion of my previous response.  I;'ll repeat it, for your benefit.  Fundamentally, that matter can interact.  You asked, and asked again, what could allow for the experience.  If you expect a full or satisfying explanation of the experience then perhaps you should ask for that instead, and probably not to me?  I only know enough to dispense with the low hanging fruit that people so often put forward as some sort of deepity.........

You know that some material systems are capable of processing information. You do not know which systems can/can't experience qualia, or why it is that ANY systems experience qualia.

How serious can you possibly be about this shit if you insist that nuerology is "waving at the brain" btw, I've wanted to ask you that for a long time.  Seems appropriate now, since you've started to repeat it like you're trying to cast a spell.  

As we've argued many times, I'm happy to say that something about the brain allows for qualia. However, within the brain are very many levels of organization, and we do not know at what level qualia emerges. It could be at a QM level, or at a molecular level, at a neuronal level, or it could require specific types of integration of information.

As you know, it is my hunch that all energetic transmission represents a primitive spark of mind. You do not have a good explanation of why mind emerges at whatever level you think it emerges at.

(I distinctly remember having had this conversation with you before...and iirc..we came to a mutual understanding.  Really don't know why it's flared up again.  You find all of this "brainwaiving" unsatisfying, for a host of reasons...some that I can understand, and some that make me say "wtf?"...that doesn't mean it's insufficient.  You don't like the explanations offered, for a host of reasons, some that I understand and some that make me say "wtf?"....that doesn't make the phenomena inexplicable, even if it is partially or wholly unexplained.)

The reason brainwaving is unsatisfying to me is that it doesn't identify what actually allows mind to supervene. If it's something intrinsic only to brains, then the answer is "brains." If it's something intrinsic to QM, then the answer is, "It's everywhere." In the former, the OP is bullshit. In the latter, you could call the Universe itself the mind of God, and that would actually mean something.

It's a non-trivial difference given the nature of the OP.

[bennyboy]

-edit-

bump double post

[chimp3]

The slave-master relationship is enticing to some. The need to be infantilized also. The Catholics like to call their preachers Father. Imagine being a middle aged adult competent in every way and you want to call a 21 year old priest Father. Protestants refer to preachers as Pastor. Sheep need pastors. Bow your head , clasp your hands together as if bound by cords, and get on your knees.

[robvalue]

Servitude huh? That would imply God needs our help for something. Not much of a god, huh. More like a projected human.

I just realised, I covered all this in a video a while back.

https://youtu.be/u2mRBcmaZ54

[Thumpalumpacus]

Given that mind is an emergent property of a brain that is part of a body, you're belaboring the obvious. But you're also miscategorizing the requirement. Fact is, comatose women have been kept on life-support so that they could bring their fetus to term (http://www.medicaldaily.com/life-support...aby-389238, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/br...33381.html, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Torres).

In this case it needed even more minds Doctors Nurses etc

You'll need to demonstrate that need. Simply repeating it is not demonstration.

The Mind cannot be an emergent property. My reasons are given on this thread

http://atheistforums.org/thread-44629.html

Citing yourself to support a bald claim is not very convincing.

A more detail account on
http://tianweb.com/Event%20to%20Dualism.pdf

Philosophical claptrap accompanied by a gross misunderstanding of physics, not to mention citing yourself again to support your own claims. Bring me facts, and quit spamming the boards with your self-promotion.

http://philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS

*yawn* More philosophical claptrap, more self-promotion, and still no facts?

Bring me facts.

While we're at it, would you learn how to use quote tags? I'm tired of having to fish your replies out of text ascribed to me -- and further, if you're not even smart enough to master simple software, why should I think you're smart enough to have answer to questions such as they one we're discussing?

[fdesilva]

Sorry to say there has been no definitive response

Its not about the evidence. You, for example, like to be a servant of Gods will. And I can see the appeal of trying to live a pure life of sacrifice.

But no matter what evidence you bring there are many people who hate the idea of servitude. They see it as an attempt to take away little they have in this life for invisible goals.

Well spoken Sir/Madam  The question if God exist and rewards after life are important from an academic point of view. Sure it can become the basis driving once life. However what is of undisputable importance is that each of us discover the importance of Love. This is the one calling in life that we all share and take for granted. Yet so often neglect and in time loose completely. If we know Love then we know God

[Jesster]

[purplepurpose]

Well spoken Sir/Madam  The question if God exist and rewards after life are important from an academic point of view. Sure it can become the basis driving once life. However what is of undisputable importance is that each of us discover the importance of Love. This is the one calling in life that we all share and take for granted. Yet so often neglect and in time loose completely. If we know Love then we know God

Why do you care so much about love?