Atheists... Your life is pointless

@MattDavis,

Can the recipient of another's action ever be free from assumptions? Surely, they can if the action is not expected. The reaction to the action would have the assumption. So, therefore it must be that a state of mind can exist that is pre-assumption... wouldn't you say?

1 Reply

@igm,

You are confusing levels.
Surprise does not negate "assumption", it merely reenforces the fallible nature of assumptions.
You are re-invoking mind. We have already established that skepticism is a conscious/thinking act. We have also already established that awareness is not the totality of cognition (at least I think we agree on that?).

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Surprise does not negate "assumption", it merely reenforces the fallible nature of assumptions.
You are re-invoking mind. We have already established that skepticism is a conscious/thinking act. We have also already established that awareness is not the totality of cognition (at least I think we agree on that?).

We do... using that linguistic framework.

But what if actions between sentient beings are not like that? What if they are more akin to e.g. combining to different chemicals to produce and effect? There are no 'assumptions' at play there, a sentient being could conceptually believe there was but the reality is that when causes and conditions are present then the 'effect' must take place... there is no choice it just happens. What if our interactions are like that but we prefer to think of 'assumptions' leading to actions?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I explained a couple of posts back. Did you not read what I said?

Sure I read it. It explained nothing.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Sure I read it. It explained nothing.

Did you make a slight mistake in your reply and it should have said "Sure I read it. and I understood nothing"?

1 Reply

@igm,

How would you like to define "sentient being"?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I did understand something rl. That your weasel words won't wash.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I did understand something rl. That your weasel words won't wash.

Spendius are you able to provide any evidence to us that you are not emotionally sterile by any of the thousands of replies that you have shared with us? Surly you have apologized or shown other signs of empathy at some point to someone in the thousands of replies that you have made?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Hi rl, there's a lot of voting down going on... the whole page above is littered with minuses and zeros! Who cares Smile

If you note the words I've now highlighted in blue above would you still reply the same way?

Sure IGM there are some things that are processed without our knowledge at the moment and many may be done without our awareness but I think that these events should be discussed by themselves in a way that we can tear them apart and analyze them.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

...these events should be discussed by themselves in a way that we can tear them apart and analyze them.

Reductionism.
Thems fightin' words for a Buddhist Wink

On a scientific level there are some difficulties to reductionist understanding, especially when systems interact in non-hierarchical ways. Neural networks are one such example.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

How would you like to define "sentient being"?

In this context just a broad description of something that appears to be alive i.e. not appearing dead and not a typical inanimate object… why do you ask? It isn't being used as a technical term, it is just to denote a being that appears to be sentient where ‘sentient’ has a normal definition.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Hi rl, there's a lot of voting down going on... the whole page above is littered with minuses and zeros! Who cares Smile

If you note the words I've now highlighted in blue above would you still reply the same way?

Sure IGM there are some things that are processed without our knowledge at the moment and many may be done without our awareness but I think that these events should be discussed by themselves in a way that we can tear them apart and analyze them.

rl no need for 'caps' just 'ig' will do.

I'm not sure what you mean can you elaborate? I'm definitely up for you 'pulling apart' any mistakes...

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Spendius are you able to provide any evidence to us that you are not emotionally sterile by any of the thousands of replies that you have shared with us? Surly you have apologized or shown other signs of empathy at some point to someone in the thousands of replies that you have made?

Are you not aware rl that our societies depend upon conflict? Our all being sweet and reasonable and chucking each other under the chin with phoney empathy and cloying sympathy is not only patronising but is the surest route to ruin. Perhaps you don't actually understand Darwin but merely use his name and that of his theory to justify your non-acceptance of Christian sexual morality in the service of your wandering desires. Which is, of course, a blasphemy against scientific rectitude.

You just want it both ways. The material benefits of ruthless competition with you swilling them down whilst posing, with a few easily chosen cliches, as Mr Nice Guy who is well known as a sanctimonious hypocrite.

I'm more interested in hearing apologies and signs of empathy directed to those who have had thousands of bombs rained down on them in order to maintain your material benefits and increase them at the rate of 4% a year.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean can you elaborate? I'm definitely up for you 'pulling apart' any mistakes...

I am not really trying to find mistakes but rather trying to find more information about what may be taking place with things such as how it appears that we are not using conscious thoughts when hitting a baseball. I think it may be because of previous conscious thoughts and training of the mind to have good eye and body coordination so that the bat can make contact with the ball if it is within the strike zone.

I think typing and musical instrument may be the same way.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Are you not aware rl that our societies depend upon conflict?

Well let me hope that you see many of them daily so that your life is the way you desire.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean can you elaborate? I'm definitely up for you 'pulling apart' any mistakes...

I am not really trying to find mistakes but rather trying to find more information about what may be taking place with things such as how it appears that we are not using conscious thoughts when hitting a baseball. I think it may be because of previous conscious thoughts and training of the mind to have good eye and body coordination so that the bat can make contact with the ball if it is within the strike zone.

I think typing and musical instrument may be the same way.

I did a quick 'Google' what do you think:

They say there are two systems in our brain. System 1 is the intuitive side of the brain. It's the part that doesn't require much conscious thought and that governs our automatic activities, like picking up a pencil or judging people by the clothes they wear. It is fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic and subconscious (thank you, Wikipedia). It is the part that fills in 2+2=___

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/hall-of-fame-voting-fast-and-slow/

0 Replies

@igm,

MattDavis wrote:

How would you like to define "sentient being"?

igm wrote:

… why do you ask? It isn't being used as a technical term, it is just to denote a being that appears to be sentient where ‘sentient’ has a normal definition.

I ask because this is my understanding of what sentience means:

"Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity."

So this is a re-envoking of subjectivity. We have yet to decide [who/what] has a subjective experience.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Well let me hope that you see many of them daily so that your life is the way you desire.

As I said, rl, your conflicts are done for you at second remove.

And that sneer does not answer to the point raised. Your meeching do-goodie pose leads to hoeing and weeding rows of turnips. It squats on the back of conflict.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spedius with all due respect,
You equivocate morality with religion (specifically "Christianity", by which you seem to assume Roman Catholicism).
You attack this straw man with much vigor and elegant prose, but you dodge any discussion of any other morality.
You can burn down the straw, that is easy.
What do you propose we build in the ashes?
Explain to me how you would like to see the world?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Izzy the authors of most books will reference their degree whether a PhD, masters or undergraduate degree it goes toward credibility. Many of my hours came after I returned to college when I needed to learn more about a particular subject. For instance before I ran for union president I took a year of business law. It came in very handy.

1 Reply

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know