Why the vision argument is a very good one!

[pocaracas]

Now I propose because your actions are in reality detailed ways that we don't perceive all the details, something that maintains who we are has to know these details, and know exactly what value we ought to get through our actions.

You were going relatively well up until this one point...
jorm only gave this a sentence of her time.
I'm going to give a bit more...

Indeed we don't perceive all the detailed goings on in our brains that lead to producing our thoughts.
But that doesn't mean that there need to be something maintaining "who we are", much less that this something "has to know these details".

What we are is maintained by conservation of energy.
The details of how quantum mechanics and biochemistry lead to psychology need not be known by anything. The particles involved themselves have no intrinsic knowledge, they just do what they do.
That we, humans, collectively, can't pinpoint exactly how our psychology arises from the underlying brain activity says that we still have some more sciencing to do.

Had you no knowledge of computers, other than they use electricity, would you be able to pinpoint where and how a bunch of electrical signals in the computer correspond to the firefox tab that is displaying the AF forum? Imagine, you had no idea of the binary nature of the computer....That would be a tricky endeavor, huh?
I'd say that our understanding of the connection between the brain activity and psychology is roughly at that level. We understand how individual neurons work, we've established that neurons operating in particular regions of the brain are connected with some generic mental activities, but how one produces the other is still unknown. The "language" of the brain is unknown and there's no rosetta stone to help.

If/when we thoroughly determine that brain activity cannot account for the mind, then the soul/god hypothesis gets a chance to shine. Until then, there's no use in struggling to produce feeble arguments from ignorance.


Your last sentence there ("know exactly what value we ought to get through our actions") is indicative of your bias.
Value is something we attribute to things. Each of us attributes a particular value to everything around us. Your sentence seems to imply that there is a value that we all should attribute to something.... our actions?...
Just to show you how you can confuse subjective and objective values, tell us if the value of money, the US Dollar, is objective or subjective and why.

[LastPoet]

Jorm wants to steal best debater from Khem. Huggy will have to stay on his fight for third place.

If she is glad keeping LR and Mystic busy, I will give her my vote. Also others might read it more thorougly.

Khem, man you need to up your game

[pocaracas]

Khem, man you need to up your game

Something about resting on his laurels...

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, not alot to respond to in the "god's watching you yank your pud" argument.

[Whateverist]

You’re simply asserting objective value.  Again.  Without evidence.  Again.

[Angrboda]

The exact similarity of the cases [in an analogy] gives us a perfect assurance of a similar outcome; and we never want or look for stronger evidence than that. But the evidence is less strong when the cases are less than perfectly alike; any reduction in similarity, however tiny, brings a corresponding reduction in the strength of the evidence; and as we move down that scale we may eventually reach a very weak analogy, leading to a conclusion that is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty.

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, p. II

[popeyespappy]

QED:  God has been absolutely proven.

lol

[Whateverist]

The exact similarity of the cases [in an analogy] gives us a perfect assurance of a similar outcome; and we never want or look for stronger evidence than that. But the evidence is less strong when the cases are less than perfectly alike; any reduction in similarity, however tiny, brings a corresponding reduction in the strength of the evidence; and as we move down that scale we may eventually reach a very weak analogy, leading to a conclusion that is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty.

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, p. II

QFT, just in case I'm not yet on ignore.

[Mister Agenda]

That many propositions and if I understood it correctly, it still boils down to another 'what if/isn't it possible?' argument from ignorance.

[Mystic]

You’re simply asserting objective value.  Again.  Without evidence.  Again.

I quote:

Now if you deny their is an exact accurate you, I will propose this. What are you estimating? And on what grounds?  If you say it's good enough and close enough to what you are, you are saying there is an accurate you, you just don't know it.