Can You Make Me See Red?

sozobe,

I understand how you feel, sozobe. I wish more had your feeling. I was speaking to those (i.e., Brandon, etc.) that continually ask for that evidence.

And that is exactly what I am going to do from now on! Thanx! :wink:

Whew!! :-D

sozobe,

I have to tell you this. I admire the heck out of you. You are straightforward, honest, and compassionate all at one time. I find that so refreshing.

You can disagree with me and leave me with the feeling that it's perfectly acceptable to you that I have different opinions. I think we all can learn something from you.

Next topic? :-)

It IS perfectly acceptable to me if you have different opinions. Homogeneity is boring. ;-)

What I respect about you is that you keep pulling bits of insight and self-reflection out of your hat... it's cool that you are able to wind this up instead of staying one-note.

Intrepid,

I'm working on it! :wink:

sozobe,

MA,

I have not waded through previous pages so forgive me if this has been said.

The problem with your analogy is that you have proposed a "scientific description" for the the lack of perception of "red" such that even those with the disabilities could agree on indirect (transducer) evidence for its "existence". Indeed the scientific term "color blindness" acknowledges the neural correlates of the disability. Such universal agreement is not the case for "a deity" therefore your analogy fails unless we propose that some of us possess a "God receptor" with distinct neural
correlates. (This was discussed this on a "Neurotheology" thread some time ago. I'll have a look for it and post it later).

http://www.able2know.com/forums/about6642-0.html

Some blind people can see red:

One thing which i don't believe anyone has brought up, but which has struck me is that MOAN is equating the inability to "see" her god with disabilities. It is not to be considered axiomatic that those who are not theists are by definition disabled.

Setanta,

Why are you putting meaning to something that was not there? I am not equating the inability to see God with disabilities. Oh brother! Do you ever look for the positive in anything?

What you speak of then is pathetic. You think that any experience can be evidence and that you need to "experience" things for evidence to be there. While you can "experience" God, it is not evidence until you actually TEST it, but as for light, you can TEST it indirectly. Any person who is not dumb can see that.

Setanta

Correct....indeed "neurotheology" could indicate it is the other way round.

Ok, now you are getting a bit desparate I think. It was just an exercise to try to show how something might be hard to do for anyone. Why are you putting meaning to it that is not there?

MA

All analogies/metaphors have positive, negative and neutral associations between two areas of discourse. It is certainly the case that "seeing" is a major metaphor for "knowing and understanding".
I use it myself in the quotation below. With such a familar metaphor it is impossible for you to rule on the applicability.

That's funny.

Okay, so you're saying that there is absolutely no meaning to this.
Gotcha.

Hey Questioner,

I explained a few times in this thread what it was all about. Whether someone believes it or not, well, that's up to them.

I thought we pretty much wound things up here.

aktorist,

I explained what it was all about. Over and over again. I am getting such a headache!

I think everything in our experience can be described as "neural__________".

I have assembled three sets. Anyone could be smart enough to understand the intrinstic differences between them.

Set 1:
Color
Time
Position
Cartesian n-Space
Numbers
Direction
Truth
Spin
Mass
Sensation

Set 2:
Sound Wave
Atoms
Jupiter
France
Marianas trench
Andromeda Galaxy
Photons
Core of the Sun
Ozone layer
Air

Set 3:
Psychokinesis
Extra Terrestrials
Santa Claus
God
Loch Ness Monster
Tooth Fairy
UFOs
Ghosts