Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

This is a false equivalence. I don't have to believe in a thing - or a possibility of a thing - to discuss it.
Then there wouldn't be any commonality to speak of when discussing the subject. I'd say something and then you would deny it has any relevance to your beliefs, or experiences, and it isn't possible etc. etc. What would be the point?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Anything which can be conceptualized can be discussed.

In order for a concept to exist, it has to have a foundation in reality, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
You, however, refuse to allow any form of conceptualization (i.e. a definition within which we can work) and ergo, a discussion is pointless.

No I refused to define God, not refuse concepts as being reflections, or possibilities of consciousness as it extends itself beyond defining relative principals.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I never once claimed the definition was absolute - nor that an absolute definition was required. Rather, I asked you for your definition, so that we could discuss 'god' in your terms.
However you imply God doesn't exist in any terms. So it would be a rather one sided conversation with no one joining in.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

without a shared acception of what a word means, no conversation is possible.

My point exactly. Are we to the point of reversing your original remark:
Originally Posted By: geek
Doesn't exist = no words
?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

What authority? I never evoked an authority. The relative value of personal experience as a way of knowing has been a topic of thousands of years of writings, and more recently, of scientific enquiry. And the conclusion of all of that - i.e. the facts as we have been able to reveal them - shows us that personal experience is a poor way to learn.

We? Who is we?
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

It would be a lot of reading on your part, but the neurobiology & psycology of how our brains process "reality" would probably be of great interest to you. Sadly, what we see/hear/feel/experience is not an accurate representation of the world around us. Our brains - for survival reasons - pre-processes everything and presents it to us in a way which is far from accurate.
So much for what neurobiology or psychology (as observed) regarding any accuracy in the accuracy of experience.
With no faith in the senses, everything is subject to the delusional properties of the brain. Every conversation would be hopelessly suspect and filled with doubt or a quality of delusion.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Not only do you want to indicate free will as fantasy
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I never did so, and I would request that you stop assigning claims to me I have never made. It is a most egregiousness form of dishonesty on your part.
[quote=Geek]
You'd be surprized just how predictable human behaviour is. Indeed, fMRI has shown us that your brain makes decisions before your concious mind is aware of it, leading some neurologists to question whether "free will" and conciousness even exist.


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
You want to establish the church of science.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Far from it - what I want is for people to use rational thought in place of irrational belief & supposition.
By eliminating experience as a factor in the thought process, and by establishing the fact that rational thinking is not possible due to the fear based survival instincts of the brain, which distorts everything?

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
without a usable definition it is impossible to even discuss if something exists.
Originally Posted By: turtle

If a usable definition is not universally accepted as a reality, discussions become relevant to beliefs and not experience OR knowledge.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Which is exactly what I have been trying to get out of you - your definition of 'god', so we can discuss the term in relationship to your beliefs. Your refusal to make even the slightest attempt at describing it is what makes discussion - and understanding - of your position impossible. Frankly, I don't care how you define god, so long as its defined in a way we can discuss.

Then extend your idea of consciousness into the the universe as a living presence outside of the mechanical operations of the meatsack and the brain. We might actually have a conversation about God.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Otherwise, we're just wasting out time.

Well that would be the subjective thing wouldn't it. Kinda like you saying there is no good or bad. People make their own determinations.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

PROVIDE YOUR BLOODY DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.. wink
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

This isn't rocket science. Whining that my definition doesn't work for you gets us no closer to any meaningful discussion.

Well your right about something, it isn't science. Science puts everything within terms of subjectivity and leaves out alot of the objectivity due to a natural distrust of the human mechanism. In turn the faulty human mechanism invents mechanical instrumentation and formulae to lean on and give authority to, because of the mistrust in the human mechanism. If it can't be measured by the human derived instrument designed to specifically measure the acceptable concept, it doesn't exist or its not worthy of acceptable supposition.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. A singular universe in no way implies a lack of free will or a state of absolute determinism.
Yet personal realities are out of the question.



Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
In other words you knew the job was dangerous when you took it and by your own choice exposed your family to this threat.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

The opposite is true. When I started this, none of that stuff existed.

Yet even if it didn't exist, it came about. Interesting how something that doesn't exist can make its way into existence for someone who stands outside of concepts of reality.
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The current anti-vax movement was decades away (and completely unpredicted - it was formulated after all on a case of scientific fraud),
So much for predictiblity
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
and the animal rights movement was peaceful. The s**t hit the proverbial fan in the 1990's, peaked in the early 2000's, and thankfully has been on the decline ever since.
Just goes to show nothing is impossible and any statement that something doesn't exist, doesn't mean it can't, or that someone hasn't already experienced it.
But then the brain is such a funny thing and so maybe all of the above is totally inaccurate and moot.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!