Spitballing here, admittedly, but here goes:
We have not observed minds being mindful in isolation. A mind thinks in language and behaves via reason. But what use is language in isolation? Language NEEDS someone to listen, as well as someone to speak.
Therefore, God speaking creation into existence cannot be tenable. For whatever else you define God as, apart from the paradoxes of omnipotence and omniscience, God is Mind preceding Matter. SINGLE Mind.
And a Mind speaking by itself does not make any logical sense. Polytheism would have to result, which can be seen in the concept of Elohim, the plural form of God, in Genesis. Talking to yourself makes more sense when you're purely Mind, and able to split up without it being seen as socially transgressive. Hell, it leads to CREATING society.
...dammit, I am not sure if that made any sense.
In Genesis, God used the words "we" and "us".
Sorry about that. It was a good idea until you read the source material.
It's also worth noting that you're equating monotheism with the specific belief in Yahweh as that singular deity. While Abrahamic religions are the most popular kind of monotheism, it's not the only one. Indeed, even religions that appear polytheistic on the surface count as monotheism. Wicca and Hinduism, for example.
Completely uncertain whether either of you guys actually read the OP. You seem to be kneejerking against your own internal dialogues more than anything else. Which I understand because that's exactly what I came into this thread to do, but then I read the OP.
I'd suggest the OP consider trying to step back from linear thinking, and also maybe ponder the actual relevance of the question.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 14, 2014, 04:02:43 PM
I'd suggest the OP consider trying to step back from linear thinking, and also maybe ponder the actual relevance of the question.
Fair enough. I was kinda...spewing out my thoughts before I lost them.
Thanks for the honest feedback.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 14, 2014, 03:58:13 PM
Completely uncertain whether either of you guys actually read the OP. You seem to be kneejerking against your own internal dialogues more than anything else. Which I understand because that's exactly what I came into this thread to do, but then I read the OP.
No, I read it. I guess I just missed the point. I'm still not quite seeing it, at least not how it relates to the title.
Linear thinking? As opposed to nonlinear thinking?
Please to explain
Quote from: rong on December 15, 2014, 02:44:12 AM
Linear thinking? As opposed to nonlinear thinking?
Please to explain
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=linear+thinking
Gee, thanks
I understood the OP as saying language only works when it is a medium to carry information from Mind A to Mind B, and so the idea that "God" would be able to think by itself, in the way we conceive, let alone communicate, isn't tenable... and being able to speak the world into existence is even less likely.
Perhaps I misunderst as well.
But LMNO is right. The Torah never claims JHVH is the only god.
Yeah, but my mistake was, that's covered in the OP with the elohim. I'll cop to bad reading comprehension.
But that makes the second paragraph incompatible with the third. Unless, of course, the OP is arguing against a (perhaps) commonly held perception that YHWH was alone when creating the universe. I doubt that anyone on this board thinks so, but I could be wrong about that, too.
That's more or less why I pointed out that monotheism=/=Judeochrislam.
The act of creation doesn't have to rely on a deity that's talking to an empty room, even if a deity is involved. The deity involved would just be alien to an Abrahamic understanding of what God is.
ETA: I should specify, "even if a singular deity is involved"
I'm pretty sure you guys brought the assumption of Judeochristianity with you; the argument seems to be independent of the source of claims of a monotheistic deity. Also it seems to seriously be saying "A monotheistic deity could never evolve naturally" and um.
Yeah.
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 14, 2014, 01:08:10 AM
And a Mind speaking by itself does not make any logical sense. Polytheism would have to result, which can be seen in the concept of Elohim, the plural form of God, in Genesis. Talking to yourself makes more sense when you're purely Mind, and able to split up without it being seen as socially transgressive. Hell, it leads to CREATING society.
The specific example given was Abrahamic.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:16:51 PM
I'm pretty sure you guys brought the assumption of Judeochristianity with you; the argument seems to be independent of the source of claims of a monotheistic deity. Also it seems to seriously be saying "A monotheistic deity could never evolve naturally" and um.
Yeah.
Perhaps all we can say is, "that was a fairly confusing post."
BrotherPrickle, I don't know if I need to point out everything that's wrong with your thesis, but among the multitude of fallacies it contains is the assumption that language is necessary for thought.
I'm a little cringey at your sweeping declaration about the definition of God, for that matter; you seem to be using a very European definition ("God is Mind preceding Matter") that is probably bogged down in your own cultural context. You might be interested in knowing that Europeans often considered Native Americans "godless" not because they worshipped the wrong god, but because they were unable to recognize Native American spiritual figures as "gods" by their definition at all.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 02:29:38 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:16:51 PM
I'm pretty sure you guys brought the assumption of Judeochristianity with you; the argument seems to be independent of the source of claims of a monotheistic deity. Also it seems to seriously be saying "A monotheistic deity could never evolve naturally" and um.
Yeah.
Perhaps all we can say is, "that was a fairly confusing post."
I didn't find it confusing so much as written around several questionable assumptions.
1. God must necessarily mirror human evolution
2. Thought requires language
3. "God" is defined as existing prior to matter
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:32:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 02:29:38 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:16:51 PM
I'm pretty sure you guys brought the assumption of Judeochristianity with you; the argument seems to be independent of the source of claims of a monotheistic deity. Also it seems to seriously be saying "A monotheistic deity could never evolve naturally" and um.
Yeah.
Perhaps all we can say is, "that was a fairly confusing post."
I didn't find it confusing so much as written around several questionable assumptions.
1. God must necessarily mirror human evolution
2. Thought requires language
3. "God" is defined as existing prior to matter
I agree. Other animals think without what we define as language and I'm sure some extraterrestrials would also object to the notion.
Hm. Good point. I was having trouble linking the three parts together into a coherent thesis, so I took the assumptions as a given to ease the way.
As far as thought preceding matter, it ignores a monotheistic model where a God may be an emergent entity.
Is it fair to point out that the OP openly admitted they were spitballing?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:39:59 PM
Is it fair to point out that the OP openly admitted they were spitballing?
Totally fair. But that's also the point in discussing it.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:39:59 PM
Is it fair to point out that the OP openly admitted they were spitballing?
That's totally fair. And I'm not picking on him, I just thought the floor was open for discussion so I'm pointing out the flaws in his reasoning. Which he might find useful, or again might not, up to him.
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 15, 2014, 02:43:25 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:39:59 PM
Is it fair to point out that the OP openly admitted they were spitballing?
Totally fair. But that's also the point in discussing it.
:lol: Jinx
Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.
I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.
Carry on!
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 15, 2014, 02:21:52 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 14, 2014, 01:08:10 AM
And a Mind speaking by itself does not make any logical sense. Polytheism would have to result, which can be seen in the concept of Elohim, the plural form of God, in Genesis. Talking to yourself makes more sense when you're purely Mind, and able to split up without it being seen as socially transgressive. Hell, it leads to CREATING society.
The specific example given was Abrahamic.
Yes. It was an example. It seems to have been a bit of a blinding one, too.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.
I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.
Carry on!
So does that mean you DON'T want people to pick apart your half-thought-through ideas and tell you what's wrong with them?
What's the benefit in even posting them, if that's the case? :?
Myself personally, if I have a half-assed idea and I'm trying to figure out whether it can be developed into a full ass, I will often toss it on the table and see if there's anything left after the shreddable bits have been shredded.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:53:06 PM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 15, 2014, 02:21:52 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 14, 2014, 01:08:10 AM
And a Mind speaking by itself does not make any logical sense. Polytheism would have to result, which can be seen in the concept of Elohim, the plural form of God, in Genesis. Talking to yourself makes more sense when you're purely Mind, and able to split up without it being seen as socially transgressive. Hell, it leads to CREATING society.
The specific example given was Abrahamic.
Yes. It was an example. It seems to have been a bit of a blinding one, too.
Well, the premise also assumes that God spoke the universe into existence. I'm not exactly sure how Aten was supposed to have done it
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.
I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.
Carry on!
So does that mean you DON'T want people to pick apart your half-thought-through ideas and tell you what's wrong with them?
What's the benefit in even posting them, if that's the case? :?
Absolutely not, but the OP is a bit of noob and had been recently trashed in at least one other thread over something fairly insignificant. I just wanted to point out that this wasn't being presented as a fully thought out thesis.
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 15, 2014, 03:03:34 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:53:06 PM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 15, 2014, 02:21:52 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 14, 2014, 01:08:10 AM
And a Mind speaking by itself does not make any logical sense. Polytheism would have to result, which can be seen in the concept of Elohim, the plural form of God, in Genesis. Talking to yourself makes more sense when you're purely Mind, and able to split up without it being seen as socially transgressive. Hell, it leads to CREATING society.
The specific example given was Abrahamic.
Yes. It was an example. It seems to have been a bit of a blinding one, too.
Well, the premise also assumes that God spoke the universe into existence. I'm not exactly sure how Aten was supposed to have done it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten
Apparently, he turned it off and on again.
So, let's go over some of the points, then.
QuoteWe have not observed minds being mindful in isolation
Is this true? Have there been experiments where subjects were put in isolation tanks, and subsequently stopped being Mindful?*
*Also, what constitutes "being mindful"?
QuoteA mind thinks in language and behaves via reason
Nigel has already pointed out the first half of this is a dubious proposition, and I'll suggest that the second half is also suspect; rationality is HARD, and rarely does it manage behavior.
QuoteBut what use is language in isolation? Language NEEDS someone to listen, as well as someone to speak.
This, I feel, has some weight behind it. I can't easily think of an example where language is used for something other than communication. Even if taking notes for personal use later on is a form of communication for one's self. Could a language naturally develop in isolation without the purpose of communication?
QuoteTherefore, God speaking creation into existence cannot be tenable. For whatever else you define God as, apart from the paradoxes of omnipotence and omniscience, God is Mind preceding Matter. SINGLE Mind.
I believe others have spoken to this point. However, since we're essentially creating the characteristics of an unknowable and untestable entity, we may have some leeway. Perhaps, instead of "for whatever else.." we replace it with "if we definie God as..." That way, you're setting up the boundaries of the proposition.
Although, then we would need to have an example of a theology that
does posit a single creator that was an isolated Mind before Matter. Otherwise, you'll need to come up with a complete cosmology that ultimately doesn't bear much resemblance to commonly held religious beliefs.
QuoteAnd a Mind speaking by itself does not make any logical sense.
This seems to hold water, as suggested by the above quote regarding language.
QuotePolytheism would have to result, which can be seen in the concept of Elohim, the plural form of God, in Genesis.
I see, so the reference to YHWH was an example
against an isolated creator Mind.
QuoteTalking to yourself makes more sense when you're purely Mind, and able to split up without it being seen as socially transgressive. Hell, it leads to CREATING society.
I think this needs to be fleshed out more. I'm not sure I'm fully grasping what you're getting at, here.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:08:25 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.
I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.
Carry on!
So does that mean you DON'T want people to pick apart your half-thought-through ideas and tell you what's wrong with them?
What's the benefit in even posting them, if that's the case? :?
Absolutely not, but the OP is a bit of noob and had been recently trashed in at least one other thread over something fairly insignificant. I just wanted to point out that this wasn't being presented as a fully thought out thesis.
This is why we issue hard hats at the door.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 15, 2014, 03:11:00 PM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 15, 2014, 03:03:34 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:53:06 PM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 15, 2014, 02:21:52 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 14, 2014, 01:08:10 AM
And a Mind speaking by itself does not make any logical sense. Polytheism would have to result, which can be seen in the concept of Elohim, the plural form of God, in Genesis. Talking to yourself makes more sense when you're purely Mind, and able to split up without it being seen as socially transgressive. Hell, it leads to CREATING society.
The specific example given was Abrahamic.
Yes. It was an example. It seems to have been a bit of a blinding one, too.
Well, the premise also assumes that God spoke the universe into existence. I'm not exactly sure how Aten was supposed to have done it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten
Apparently, he turned it off and on again.
:lol:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 15, 2014, 03:11:28 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:08:25 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.
I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.
Carry on!
So does that mean you DON'T want people to pick apart your half-thought-through ideas and tell you what's wrong with them?
What's the benefit in even posting them, if that's the case? :?
Absolutely not, but the OP is a bit of noob and had been recently trashed in at least one other thread over something fairly insignificant. I just wanted to point out that this wasn't being presented as a fully thought out thesis.
This is why we issue hard hats at the door.
All I got was a beanie with a propeller.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:15:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 15, 2014, 03:11:28 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:08:25 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.
I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.
Carry on!
So does that mean you DON'T want people to pick apart your half-thought-through ideas and tell you what's wrong with them?
What's the benefit in even posting them, if that's the case? :?
Absolutely not, but the OP is a bit of noob and had been recently trashed in at least one other thread over something fairly insignificant. I just wanted to point out that this wasn't being presented as a fully thought out thesis.
This is why we issue hard hats at the door.
All I got was a beanie with a propeller.
That was back in the day, before regulation.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:08:25 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.
I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.
Carry on!
So does that mean you DON'T want people to pick apart your half-thought-through ideas and tell you what's wrong with them?
What's the benefit in even posting them, if that's the case? :?
Absolutely not, but the OP is a bit of noob and had been recently trashed in at least one other thread over something fairly insignificant. I just wanted to point out that this wasn't being presented as a fully thought out thesis.
Is this one an actual noob? Or is it one of the "I used to post here and then I left and then I came back" folks?
I can't keep them straight, and apparently I'm only allowed to talk to some of them like adult human beings.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 01:56:11 PM
I understood the OP as saying language only works when it is a medium to carry information from Mind A to Mind B, and so the idea that "God" would be able to think by itself, in the way we conceive, let alone communicate, isn't tenable... and being able to speak the world into existence is even less likely.
Perhaps I misunderst as well.
But LMNO is right. The Torah never claims JHVH is the only god.
Good points. Oh, and Mind A and Mind B do not have to be in the same space-time frame... I.E. Language can be used to "time-bind" (in the RAW-Leary sense) by binding information onto physical media to be reviewed later i.e by transmitting it into the future.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 03:23:17 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:08:25 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.
I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.
Carry on!
So does that mean you DON'T want people to pick apart your half-thought-through ideas and tell you what's wrong with them?
What's the benefit in even posting them, if that's the case? :?
Absolutely not, but the OP is a bit of noob and had been recently trashed in at least one other thread over something fairly insignificant. I just wanted to point out that this wasn't being presented as a fully thought out thesis.
Is this one an actual noob? Or is it one of the "I used to post here and then I left and then I came back" folks?
I can't keep them straight, and apparently I'm only allowed to talk to some of them like adult human beings.
I'm not sure if this news to you Nigel, but you're not exactly known for your bedside manner.
Forget I said anything, carry on, as you were. I'm out.
1. He isn't a noob.
2. Crapping all over people as they walk in the door is a time-honored tradition here on PD, and Nigel is the LEAST guilty of this, in most cases.
3. Nigel's bedside manner is more akin to Lemmy than House. "IT MIGHT BE LUPUS. HERE, SNORT THIS BUCKET OF COCAINE."
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:26:37 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 03:23:17 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:08:25 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.
I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.
Carry on!
So does that mean you DON'T want people to pick apart your half-thought-through ideas and tell you what's wrong with them?
What's the benefit in even posting them, if that's the case? :?
Absolutely not, but the OP is a bit of noob and had been recently trashed in at least one other thread over something fairly insignificant. I just wanted to point out that this wasn't being presented as a fully thought out thesis.
Is this one an actual noob? Or is it one of the "I used to post here and then I left and then I came back" folks?
I can't keep them straight, and apparently I'm only allowed to talk to some of them like adult human beings.
I'm not sure if this news to you Nigel, but you're not exactly known for your bedside manner.
Forget I said anything, carry on, as you were. I'm out.
I would LOVE to hear the voice in your head that you read my posts in, as you seem to find them remarkably more abrasive, by default, than most people seem to.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 15, 2014, 03:30:54 PM
1. He isn't a noob.
2. Crapping all over people as they walk in the door is a time-honored tradition here on PD, and Nigel is the LEAST guilty of this, in most cases.
3. Nigel's bedside manner is more akin to Lemmy than House. "IT MIGHT BE LUPUS. HERE, SNORT THIS BUCKET OF COCAINE."
:lulz:
I think Hoops and I could have some good conversations, if he could just get over his apparent hard-on for Telling Nigel To Be Nice.
Hoops, I have to tell you, I might say things people don't want to hear, but I haven't actually been a mean bastard since around May 2011.
Ok, so I guess the question about whether language can develop in isolation isn't that hard to figure out. It's looking like just about every common definition of language includes some reference to "communication", so there necessarily must be a sender and a receiver, even if that receiver is the Self (leaving notes and reminders, for example).
So yeah, as long as it's a set of symbols, or sounds, or just about anything that can be sensed (Original Story Idea: A language communicated through taste), and has a structure that can be understood by a sender and a receiver, you can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
Which means, concerning the OP, we're left, again, with Nigel's list of assumptions. And, perhaps, the complete overuse of commas, specifically by me.
Sorry I had to take the long way to get there, Nigel.
Even if commas are used properly, there's always too many of them.
For what it's worth, by the way, Brother Prickle has been a member for 3.5 years.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 03:37:24 PM
I think Hoops and I could have some good conversations, if he could just get over his apparent hard-on for Telling Nigel To Be Nice.
Hoops, I have to tell you, I might say things people don't want to hear, but I haven't actually been a mean bastard since around May 2011.
When have I ever "told" you to be nice before today?
Nigel, you happen to be one of my favorite people here, but all I'm getting from you in this thread (more so in the beginning, to be fair) is "nobody read the OP, and by the way the OP is derp anyway". I'm sincerely sorry if I've given you the impression I wanted you to play nice.
I'm tired and perhaps a little cranky today. I apologize for slagging the thread up, OP ask for a thread snip if it bothers you.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 15, 2014, 03:55:54 PM
For what it's worth, by the way, Brother Prickle has been a member for 3.5 years.
Slinking back out the way I came...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 03:45:21 PM
Ok, so I guess the question about whether language can develop in isolation isn't that hard to figure out. It's looking like just about every common definition of language includes some reference to "communication", so there necessarily must be a sender and a receiver, even if that receiver is the Self (leaving notes and reminders, for example).
So yeah, as long as it's a set of symbols, or sounds, or just about anything that can be sensed (Original Story Idea: A language communicated through taste), and has a structure that can be understood by a sender and a receiver, you can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
Which means, concerning the OP, we're left, again, with Nigel's list of assumptions. And, perhaps, the complete overuse of commas, specifically by me.
Sorry I had to take the long way to get there, Nigel.
The receiver could also be the Void that preexists the Cosmos, kinda like God figuring out how to program nothingness into somethingness, but yes, basically we're left with the list.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:30:20 PM
BrotherPrickle, I don't know if I need to point out everything that's wrong with your thesis, but among the multitude of fallacies it contains is the assumption that language is necessary for thought.
I'm a little cringey at your sweeping declaration about the definition of God, for that matter; you seem to be using a very European definition ("God is Mind preceding Matter") that is probably bogged down in your own cultural context. You might be interested in knowing that Europeans often considered Native Americans "godless" not because they worshipped the wrong god, but because they were unable to recognize Native American spiritual figures as "gods" by their definition at all.
That's fair as hell.
I was posting it based on a conversation with a friend, and when I get into those arguments, I find my thoughts snapping back into this Christian apologetics mindspace. Since I have currently tried to turn my back on it, I often find myself arguing for a Dawkins-viewpoint.
I do try to learn more about other cultures, and love hearing about different interpretations of God, but, well...yeah. Most of my seriously deep theology education is heavily rooted in the European tradition. Or the snippets of Buddhism I have gleaned from a fiction writer, but I already am pretty sure I have no idea what it really means.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 03:23:17 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:08:25 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.
I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.
Carry on!
So does that mean you DON'T want people to pick apart your half-thought-through ideas and tell you what's wrong with them?
What's the benefit in even posting them, if that's the case? :?
Absolutely not, but the OP is a bit of noob and had been recently trashed in at least one other thread over something fairly insignificant. I just wanted to point out that this wasn't being presented as a fully thought out thesis.
Is this one an actual noob? Or is it one of the "I used to post here and then I left and then I came back" folks?
I can't keep them straight, and apparently I'm only allowed to talk to some of them like adult human beings.
Actually, both! I was a noob a while ago, and I think trying too hard. You said I was someone else, and I realized I was making an ass of myself. So, left for years. Came back recently, and enjoying looking through the threads. So...I think I count as both. I hope I'm not breaking any rules.
It's all good.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 03:45:21 PM
Ok, so I guess the question about whether language can develop in isolation isn't that hard to figure out. It's looking like just about every common definition of language includes some reference to "communication", so there necessarily must be a sender and a receiver, even if that receiver is the Self (leaving notes and reminders, for example).
So yeah, as long as it's a set of symbols, or sounds, or just about anything that can be sensed (Original Story Idea: A language communicated through taste), and has a structure that can be understood by a sender and a receiver, you can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
Which means, concerning the OP, we're left, again, with Nigel's list of assumptions. And, perhaps, the complete overuse of commas, specifically by me.
Sorry I had to take the long way to get there, Nigel.
I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'. I've mentioned elsewhere how useful illusions like the 'self' function to 'keep the body out of traffic' and stuff like that, but the other side of this is also interesting. Imagine that GOD was all the seraphim taking turns wearing a mask....that fits the language in Genesis 1 anyway.
EDIT because I think synchronicities like this can be meaningful - this came up on Facebook from another Discordian seconds after I posted this and it ties to the mono-narrative.
(https://scontent-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10849889_1376499765981666_1898935534868671194_n.jpg?oh=5016e4b2323e22e83f170655b4c7a934&oe=554476BB)
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 15, 2014, 11:24:57 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 02:30:20 PM
BrotherPrickle, I don't know if I need to point out everything that's wrong with your thesis, but among the multitude of fallacies it contains is the assumption that language is necessary for thought.
I'm a little cringey at your sweeping declaration about the definition of God, for that matter; you seem to be using a very European definition ("God is Mind preceding Matter") that is probably bogged down in your own cultural context. You might be interested in knowing that Europeans often considered Native Americans "godless" not because they worshipped the wrong god, but because they were unable to recognize Native American spiritual figures as "gods" by their definition at all.
That's fair as hell.
I was posting it based on a conversation with a friend, and when I get into those arguments, I find my thoughts snapping back into this Christian apologetics mindspace. Since I have currently tried to turn my back on it, I often find myself arguing for a Dawkins-viewpoint.
I do try to learn more about other cultures, and love hearing about different interpretations of God, but, well...yeah. Most of my seriously deep theology education is heavily rooted in the European tradition. Or the snippets of Buddhism I have gleaned from a fiction writer, but I already am pretty sure I have no idea what it really means.
It's an interesting conversation. I'm still not quite sure what you were thinking when you posted the OP, I'm having a bit of trouble figuring it out even still. But it did remind me that God is a fairly amorphous word in itself.
I honestly don't know what you mean by God in the OP. I suspect it's a strongly Abrahamic concept, and you've done little to dissuade me of it, but at the same time I'm not discounting that Nigel caught a whiff of something a little more nuanced but not necessarily apparent. If that's the monotheistic model that you're using as a reference point, that's fine, but please spell that out, because as I mentioned, while the Western concept of pure monotheism tends to be Abrahamic, there is also nuance there. I'm taking it literally that your premise is opposed specifically to the concept of a monotheistic deity that requires language to bring the universe into existence, because, as far as I can tell, that's what you've been given us to work with, and that puts it pretty firmly in the Abrahamic camp. Aten hit the reset button. Ahura Mazda decided to start off with metalworking (the sky is metal, btw). The pantheistic god just kinda showed up as a natural result. Maybe I'm thinking too hard about it but you linking creation to the idea of a transcendent deity using language specifically to make this shit happen seems to me to be specifically geared towards the concept of Yahweh.
Yeah, but he said the YHWH thing didn't count as an example, when he mentioned the Elohim.
So, the sticking point for me is, exactly
who is claiming that god was an isolated Mind Before Matter when it created the universe? So far, I haven't seen any creation myth that has that as part of the story.
Quote from: Telarus on December 16, 2014, 03:18:48 AM
I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.
I'm not sure where how you arrived there from
Quoteyou can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.
Say a person is in isolation, on an island. We'll hand-wave the fact that solitary humans don't have a high survival rate, and stay focused. This person has a pen of goats, and he lets them out in the morning, and pens them up at night. In order to make sure all the goats are there, when he lets them out in the morning, he puts a stone in a bucket each time a goat walks through the gate. At night, he takes a stone back out as each one walks back in.
That stone is a form of language. It's a word. It's coded to mean, "this is a goat," or simply, "goat".
The bucket is also a word. It means, "field".
A stone in a bucket means, "a goat is in the field". If there are extra stones left over in the bucket at the end of the day, he's telling himself that "there's a goat missing." This is one form of language that can develop in isolation.
And you can easily show it's a form of communication, because if there were
two people on the island, one of them could put the stones in the bucket in the morning, and the other one could take the stones out at night, and the second person would immediately know if there was a goat missing, without having to speak to the first person.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 15, 2014, 03:45:21 PM
Ok, so I guess the question about whether language can develop in isolation isn't that hard to figure out. It's looking like just about every common definition of language includes some reference to "communication", so there necessarily must be a sender and a receiver, even if that receiver is the Self (leaving notes and reminders, for example).
So yeah, as long as it's a set of symbols, or sounds, or just about anything that can be sensed (Original Story Idea: A language communicated through taste), and has a structure that can be understood by a sender and a receiver, you can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
Which means, concerning the OP, we're left, again, with Nigel's list of assumptions. And, perhaps, the complete overuse of commas, specifically by me.
Sorry I had to take the long way to get there, Nigel.
No worries! I'm always pleased when you end up agreeing with me, because I respect your thinking.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 03:37:24 PM
I think Hoops and I could have some good conversations, if he could just get over his apparent hard-on for Telling Nigel To Be Nice.
Hoops, I have to tell you, I might say things people don't want to hear, but I haven't actually been a mean bastard since around May 2011.
When have I ever "told" you to be nice before today?
Unless I'm mistaken, you have made at least one other "ease up on the noob" post directed toward me in the last few weeks, so I wound up with a bit of that impression.
Quote
Nigel, you happen to be one of my favorite people here, but all I'm getting from you in this thread (more so in the beginning, to be fair) is "nobody read the OP, and by the way the OP is derp anyway".
I was addressing the two people who had replied at that point, who are LMNO and Twid. I replied that way because
A: They seemed to be replying to the OP as if it were a criticism of Judeochristian religion specifically, which it wasn't, and
B. because in my opinion the OP is of limited value because of three specific assumptions that it appears to make, which I then spelled out.
Quote
I'm sincerely sorry if I've given you the impression I wanted you to play nice.
Apology accepted. I want to clarify that the only thing that bothered me was that what you seemed to be arguing against wasn't the content of my posts, but the tone of the delivery of the content. To me, that says you are reading my posts in a hostile, aggressive tone. I'm not sure what I could do, other than adding obsequious phrasing like "I'm so sorry, I might be wrong about this, but...", to change the tone, and I'm not willing to do that.
Quote
I'm tired and perhaps a little cranky today. I apologize for slagging the thread up, OP ask for a thread snip if it bothers you.
No worries, that's up to BrotherPrickle.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 16, 2014, 12:16:22 PM
Yeah, but he said the YHWH thing didn't count as an example, when he mentioned the Elohim.
So, the sticking point for me is, exactly who is claiming that god was an isolated Mind Before Matter when it created the universe? So far, I haven't seen any creation myth that has that as part of the story.
Quote from: Telarus on December 16, 2014, 03:18:48 AM
I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.
I'm not sure where how you arrived there from Quoteyou can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.
Say a person is in isolation, on an island. We'll hand-wave the fact that solitary humans don't have a high survival rate, and stay focused. This person has a pen of goats, and he lets them out in the morning, and pens them up at night. In order to make sure all the goats are there, when he lets them out in the morning, he puts a stone in a bucket each time a goat walks through the gate. At night, he takes a stone back out as each one walks back in.
That stone is a form of language. It's a word. It's coded to mean, "this is a goat," or simply, "goat".
The bucket is also a word. It means, "field".
A stone in a bucket means, "a goat is in the field". If there are extra stones left over in the bucket at the end of the day, he's telling himself that "there's a goat missing." This is one form of language that can develop in isolation.
And you can easily show it's a form of communication, because if there were two people on the island, one of them could put the stones in the bucket in the morning, and the other one could take the stones out at night, and the second person would immediately know if there was a goat missing, without having to speak to the first person.
The only problem I have with this scenario (aside from the obvious, which you already addressed) is that it assumes "a person", and further, it assumes a person whose development included enough of a social background to herd goats. People are linguistic creatures, that's part of our nature, assuming we're raised with language (and to set aside that assumption opens a can of worms).
What I'm saying is that language isn't necessary for thought. In fact, in order to be communicated, thought must be translated into language. It is possible, due to brain damage, to lose the ability to speak or understand language, but people with this kind of brain damage still think; they still know what things are, and can conceptualize the future. They simply lose the ability to communicate with symbols.
Even if we are to accept the premise that the question of whether monotheism makes sense is meaningful, whether it is possible for a solitary entity to form language is not relevant to whether a solitary entity can think.
I find this conversation interesting because I like the opportunity to examine the assumption sets that show up. However, ultimately, if we are talking about a supernatural all-knowing being that creates earth and humanity and all the animals and therefore also language and society, arguing about whether that supernatural entity follows the development patterns of social mammals seems a little like begging the question.
Two very good points. I absolutely agree that language is not necessary for thought. At first, found it difficult to come up with personal situations where I think without language, but then I realized that when I play music, I'm often not using language to create the rhythms. I guess my point was in response to the OP, that seemed to state language could not develop in isolation.
And yes, it is a bit arrogant to assume an omnipotent creator entity would have the same mental development as a human.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 16, 2014, 02:58:58 PM
Two very good points. I absolutely agree that language is not necessary for thought. At first, found it difficult to come up with personal situations where I think without language, but then I realized that when I play music, I'm often not using language to create the rhythms. I guess my point was in response to the OP, that seemed to state language could not develop in isolation.
And yes, it is a bit arrogant to assume an omnipotent creator entity would have the same mental development as a human.
I think that we can fairly safely agree that the idea that there can be no mind without language lacks support.
I tend to find that I think in language only when I'm thinking specifically of communicating ideas, but otherwise tend to be a more visual/spacial/conceptual thinker.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 03:14:10 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 16, 2014, 02:58:58 PM
Two very good points. I absolutely agree that language is not necessary for thought. At first, found it difficult to come up with personal situations where I think without language, but then I realized that when I play music, I'm often not using language to create the rhythms. I guess my point was in response to the OP, that seemed to state language could not develop in isolation.
And yes, it is a bit arrogant to assume an omnipotent creator entity would have the same mental development as a human.
I think that we can fairly safely agree that the idea that there can be no mind without language lacks support.
I tend to find that I think in language only when I'm thinking specifically of communicating ideas, but otherwise tend to be a more visual/spacial/conceptual thinker.
I had to think about whether or not I switch, because the only time I notice that I'm thinking, my mind is speaking the thought. Then I got a piece of bread and there was no auditory component to the sound, even though my mind is essentially dictating what I'm typing to my hands. But then again that's because I'm having to organize my thoughts in a way that I can send them. I guess I just automatically assumed that I mostly heard my thoughts. Now if I can figure out how to use that to turn off the radio...
Interesting stuff! To clarify, I was trying to discuss a monotheistic God apart from Abrahamic faith. Basically, I was assuming that thought requires language, and that one cannot create anything, ex nihilo or not, without thinking. At the least, not the god of Creationism, which I suppose was the entire point of the initial post.
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought. I've never caught myself doing that, personally, but I cannot speak for others. And the idea of a written language being developed for speaking with oneself is also a good solution. It reminds me of The Electronic Revolution essay.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 02:27:11 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 03:37:24 PM
I think Hoops and I could have some good conversations, if he could just get over his apparent hard-on for Telling Nigel To Be Nice.
Hoops, I have to tell you, I might say things people don't want to hear, but I haven't actually been a mean bastard since around May 2011.
When have I ever "told" you to be nice before today?
Unless I'm mistaken, you have made at least one other "ease up on the noob" post directed toward me in the last few weeks, so I wound up with a bit of that impression.
Quote
Nigel, you happen to be one of my favorite people here, but all I'm getting from you in this thread (more so in the beginning, to be fair) is "nobody read the OP, and by the way the OP is derp anyway".
I was addressing the two people who had replied at that point, who are LMNO and Twid. I replied that way because
A: They seemed to be replying to the OP as if it were a criticism of Judeochristian religion specifically, which it wasn't, and
B. because in my opinion the OP is of limited value because of three specific assumptions that it appears to make, which I then spelled out.
Quote
I'm sincerely sorry if I've given you the impression I wanted you to play nice.
Apology accepted. I want to clarify that the only thing that bothered me was that what you seemed to be arguing against wasn't the content of my posts, but the tone of the delivery of the content. To me, that says you are reading my posts in a hostile, aggressive tone. I'm not sure what I could do, other than adding obsequious phrasing like "I'm so sorry, I might be wrong about this, but...", to change the tone, and I'm not willing to do that.
Quote
I'm tired and perhaps a little cranky today. I apologize for slagging the thread up, OP ask for a thread snip if it bothers you.
No worries, that's up to BrotherPrickle.
Pretty certain that must have been someone else who told you to ease up on any earlier noobs. Everything else, I agree completely.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 16, 2014, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 02:27:11 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2014, 03:59:36 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 15, 2014, 03:37:24 PM
I think Hoops and I could have some good conversations, if he could just get over his apparent hard-on for Telling Nigel To Be Nice.
Hoops, I have to tell you, I might say things people don't want to hear, but I haven't actually been a mean bastard since around May 2011.
When have I ever "told" you to be nice before today?
Unless I'm mistaken, you have made at least one other "ease up on the noob" post directed toward me in the last few weeks, so I wound up with a bit of that impression.
Quote
Nigel, you happen to be one of my favorite people here, but all I'm getting from you in this thread (more so in the beginning, to be fair) is "nobody read the OP, and by the way the OP is derp anyway".
I was addressing the two people who had replied at that point, who are LMNO and Twid. I replied that way because
A: They seemed to be replying to the OP as if it were a criticism of Judeochristian religion specifically, which it wasn't, and
B. because in my opinion the OP is of limited value because of three specific assumptions that it appears to make, which I then spelled out.
Quote
I'm sincerely sorry if I've given you the impression I wanted you to play nice.
Apology accepted. I want to clarify that the only thing that bothered me was that what you seemed to be arguing against wasn't the content of my posts, but the tone of the delivery of the content. To me, that says you are reading my posts in a hostile, aggressive tone. I'm not sure what I could do, other than adding obsequious phrasing like "I'm so sorry, I might be wrong about this, but...", to change the tone, and I'm not willing to do that.
Quote
I'm tired and perhaps a little cranky today. I apologize for slagging the thread up, OP ask for a thread snip if it bothers you.
No worries, that's up to BrotherPrickle.
Pretty certain that must have been someone else who told you to ease up on any earlier noobs. Everything else, I agree completely.
Oh OK, sorry about that then.
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 06:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.
Ha! It happens.
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 06:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.
That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 16, 2014, 11:48:31 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 06:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.
That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.
The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 12:33:40 AM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 16, 2014, 11:48:31 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 06:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.
That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.
The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.
I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 06:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.
It's your avatar. Makes ya dumb.
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 17, 2014, 12:38:38 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 12:33:40 AM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 16, 2014, 11:48:31 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 06:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.
That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.
The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.
I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them
I have seen similar kinds of things in my chat logs.
It's disturbing to find out first-hand how inscrutable your own thought process is to others.
Ahem. Back on the topic that I sorta started? I was defining God as Mind preceding Matter. By God, I meant the Creator implied by Creationism and the Finely-Tuned Universe, the opponent to militant atheists like Dawkins. God exists before the Big Bang in this scenario, and thus probably precedes matter. I suppose the question, put better, was how a Mind could exist without a social context.
Nigel has noted that I almost implied God needs an evolutionary context to emerge from. Well, now I state it outright: I am not sure how you can have a mind WITHOUT a social context to emerge from. The organizers of raw primordial soup that you see in polytheistic myths (including the pluralistic take on Elohim) strike me as closer to early humans founding civilization than to watchmakers building their watches. A watchmaker implies a whole culture outside himself. I was using language as a short-hand for the need for other people: I speak because I expect others to listen. As has been noted, time-binding can explain language just fine.
Now...does the definition of Monotheist God as Mind preceding Matter hold water? How wrong is it to assume the first Mind needed to be one of many?
And why does Doktor Howl hate my avatar? One too many fans of Discord shitting up the forums?
Social context is not needed for thought. I'm saying this from a biological perspective.
There are plenty of species of animal with otherwise complex nervous systems that do not socialize. They're still capable of thought because they still have to interact with their environments. This even works with humans. Picture yourself as the absolute last human in existence. You would probably talk to yourself a lot at first, and then maybe gradually get silent. Other animals you come across are food. No socializing. Let's just say dogs are totally gone too. There's no particular reason to think anything about anything outside of your immediate needs, but when the sun goes down and your food is consumed, are you going to still wonder, or are you just a meat automaton because there's no other automatons to communicate with?
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 17, 2014, 02:18:41 AM
Social context is not needed for thought. I'm saying this from a biological perspective.
There are plenty of species of animal with otherwise complex nervous systems that do not socialize. They're still capable of thought because they still have to interact with their environments. This even works with humans. Picture yourself as the absolute last human in existence. You would probably talk to yourself a lot at first, and then maybe gradually get silent. Other animals you come across are food. No socializing. Let's just say dogs are totally gone too. There's no particular reason to think anything about anything outside of your immediate needs, but when the sun goes down and your food is consumed, are you going to still wonder, or are you just a meat automaton because there's no other automatons to communicate with?
I'd need to read up on feral children cases. And I am interested in these non-social intelligent animals too. Most of the ones I've read about are social. ...except octopi, I think. Octopi and some squid? Or some octopi and some squid.
But yes, I suppose my feeble OP argument is pretty thoroughly demolished. Thanks! :lulz:
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 17, 2014, 02:07:32 AM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 17, 2014, 12:38:38 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 12:33:40 AM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 16, 2014, 11:48:31 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 06:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.
That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.
The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.
I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them
I have seen similar kinds of things in my chat logs.
It's disturbing to find out first-hand how inscrutable your own thought process is to others.
Ahem. Back on the topic that I sorta started? I was defining God as Mind preceding Matter. By God, I meant the Creator implied by Creationism and the Finely-Tuned Universe, the opponent to militant atheists like Dawkins. God exists before the Big Bang in this scenario, and thus probably precedes matter. I suppose the question, put better, was how a Mind could exist without a social context.
OK, so you ARE talking about a Judeo-Christian definition of God? Are you gonna stick with this one?
Quote
Nigel has noted that I almost implied God needs an evolutionary context to emerge from. Well, now I state it outright: I am not sure how you can have a mind WITHOUT a social context to emerge from. The organizers of raw primordial soup that you see in polytheistic myths (including the pluralistic take on Elohim) strike me as closer to early humans founding civilization than to watchmakers building their watches. A watchmaker implies a whole culture outside himself. I was using language as a short-hand for the need for other people: I speak because I expect others to listen. As has been noted, time-binding can explain language just fine.
I think you need to clarify your thesis a little better. Are you saying that the existence of "mind" requires evolutionary context, or that the existence of "mind" requires social context? And now you refer again to polytheistic myths including the Judeochristian Elohim... are you referring to them as a sensical model or as an example of an unworkable model? This entire paragraph seems incredibly unclear and not well thought through. I can't even identify your thesis statement in it.
Quote
Now...does the definition of Monotheist God as Mind preceding Matter hold water? How wrong is it to assume the first Mind needed to be one of many?
Probably not wrong, as much as self-referential intellectual wankery that completely depends on following your own definitions for every element of the question.
Quote
And why does Doktor Howl hate my avatar? One too many fans of Discord shitting up the forums?
No, because of bronies.
Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.
You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.
You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.
You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2014, 02:36:15 AM
Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.
You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.
You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.
You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?
That kinda seems like a nice, concise description of what's going on.
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 17, 2014, 02:07:32 AM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 17, 2014, 12:38:38 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 12:33:40 AM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 16, 2014, 11:48:31 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 06:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.
That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.
The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.
I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them
I have seen similar kinds of things in my chat logs.
It's disturbing to find out first-hand how inscrutable your own thought process is to others.
Ahem. Back on the topic that I sorta started? I was defining God as Mind preceding Matter. By God, I meant the Creator implied by Creationism and the Finely-Tuned Universe, the opponent to militant atheists like Dawkins. God exists before the Big Bang in this scenario, and thus probably precedes matter. I suppose the question, put better, was how a Mind could exist without a social context.
Ok, hang on a minute here. It seems like you're lumping your premises in as necessarily entwined. Which is probably why I thought you were conflating monotheism with Judeochrislam. I think I've already touched on how a mind can exist without a social context. A mind only exists to make sure that a particular pattern of nucleic acids replicates to a certain degree. I myself am not an atheist, but one of my favorite quotes is actually a Dawkins quote and has nothing to do with atheism, but with the chicken and the egg. He basically said the chicken is merely a means for the egg to make more eggs. And if you ever studied even an overview of plant evolution, you would know that that's a pretty apt comparison (mosses, which are more "primitive" spend most of their life cycle in the haploid stage, whereas flowering plants which are more recent spend most of their time in the diploid stage. If you don't know what that means, humans are haploid when they are sperm and egg, and diploid when they are embryo to corpse)
QuoteNigel has noted that I almost implied God needs an evolutionary context to emerge from. Well, now I state it outright: I am not sure how you can have a mind WITHOUT a social context to emerge from. The organizers of raw primordial soup that you see in polytheistic myths (including the pluralistic take on Elohim) strike me as closer to early humans founding civilization than to watchmakers building their watches. A watchmaker implies a whole culture outside himself. I was using language as a short-hand for the need for other people: I speak because I expect others to listen. As has been noted, time-binding can explain language just fine.
A god needs nothing. A theology does. And a human language to express the concept. I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by God, even within a monotheistic model. Is it omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? Benevolent? Eternal? Has personhood? Has complicated system of ethics? Intervenes in the affairs of a quirk species on a random planet? Promises immorality after biological death? I used to worship the Irish gods. Mythologically speaking, I was at any point in my life perfectly able to kill one of them if I had a whim to do so and they were physically present before me.
QuoteNow...does the definition of Monotheist God as Mind preceding Matter hold water? How wrong is it to assume the first Mind needed to be one of many?
We can't know what preceded the universe as we understand it. The question, objectively, is meaningless. If you want to conceive of mind preceding matter, you have to be able to demonstrate a model where a mind can exist without matter. We don't know if there is an outside of this Universe. If there is, that opens up a lot of questions. Questions we might not be able to answer because
our universe is a closed system. As far as we can tell.
And why does Doktor Howl hate my avatar? One too many fans of Discord shitting up the forums?
[/quote]
I don't recognize your avatar. Maybe you're putting too much importance on its significance and recognizability.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 02:38:09 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2014, 02:36:15 AM
Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.
You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.
You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.
You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?
That kinda seems like a nice, concise description of what's going on.
And it only took me three days to get there!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2014, 02:41:41 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 02:38:09 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2014, 02:36:15 AM
Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.
You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.
You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.
You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?
That kinda seems like a nice, concise description of what's going on.
And it only took me three days to get there!
Shit, I don't even know what he's getting at anymore, so you're one ahead of me.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 02:55:05 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2014, 02:41:41 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 02:38:09 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 17, 2014, 02:36:15 AM
Let's put it this way: You create a God from a definition that isn't found in any mythology.
You then constrain that God with rules that, as a God, are completely arbitrary.
You then argue against a God acting within those constraints.
You're sort of creating an easily defeatable argument, aren't you?
That kinda seems like a nice, concise description of what's going on.
And it only took me three days to get there!
Shit, I don't even know what he's getting at anymore, so you're one ahead of me.
...to be fair, neither do I. I think I was trying to argue against creationism, instead of specific mythologies? Blargh.
Fuck, it's been too long since I've had to argue anything with people who actually knew what they're talking about.
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 17, 2014, 02:39:37 AM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 17, 2014, 02:07:32 AM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 17, 2014, 12:38:38 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 12:33:40 AM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 16, 2014, 11:48:31 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 06:17:29 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 16, 2014, 06:04:49 PM
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on December 16, 2014, 04:22:16 PM
And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.
People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...
...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.
That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.
The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.
I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them
I have seen similar kinds of things in my chat logs.
It's disturbing to find out first-hand how inscrutable your own thought process is to others.
Ahem. Back on the topic that I sorta started? I was defining God as Mind preceding Matter. By God, I meant the Creator implied by Creationism and the Finely-Tuned Universe, the opponent to militant atheists like Dawkins. God exists before the Big Bang in this scenario, and thus probably precedes matter. I suppose the question, put better, was how a Mind could exist without a social context.
Ok, hang on a minute here. It seems like you're lumping your premises in as necessarily entwined. Which is probably why I thought you were conflating monotheism with Judeochrislam. I think I've already touched on how a mind can exist without a social context. A mind only exists to make sure that a particular pattern of nucleic acids replicates to a certain degree. I myself am not an atheist, but one of my favorite quotes is actually a Dawkins quote and has nothing to do with atheism, but with the chicken and the egg. He basically said the chicken is merely a means for the egg to make more eggs. And if you ever studied even an overview of plant evolution, you would know that that's a pretty apt comparison (mosses, which are more "primitive" spend most of their life cycle in the haploid stage, whereas flowering plants which are more recent spend most of their time in the diploid stage. If you don't know what that means, humans are haploid when they are sperm and egg, and diploid when they are embryo to corpse)
QuoteNigel has noted that I almost implied God needs an evolutionary context to emerge from. Well, now I state it outright: I am not sure how you can have a mind WITHOUT a social context to emerge from. The organizers of raw primordial soup that you see in polytheistic myths (including the pluralistic take on Elohim) strike me as closer to early humans founding civilization than to watchmakers building their watches. A watchmaker implies a whole culture outside himself. I was using language as a short-hand for the need for other people: I speak because I expect others to listen. As has been noted, time-binding can explain language just fine.
A god needs nothing. A theology does. And a human language to express the concept. I'm still not exactly sure what you mean by God, even within a monotheistic model. Is it omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? Benevolent? Eternal? Has personhood? Has complicated system of ethics? Intervenes in the affairs of a quirk species on a random planet? Promises immorality after biological death? I used to worship the Irish gods. Mythologically speaking, I was at any point in my life perfectly able to kill one of them if I had a whim to do so and they were physically present before me.
QuoteNow...does the definition of Monotheist God as Mind preceding Matter hold water? How wrong is it to assume the first Mind needed to be one of many?
We can't know what preceded the universe as we understand it. The question, objectively, is meaningless. If you want to conceive of mind preceding matter, you have to be able to demonstrate a model where a mind can exist without matter. We don't know if there is an outside of this Universe. If there is, that opens up a lot of questions. Questions we might not be able to answer because our universe is a closed system. As far as we can tell.
And why does Doktor Howl hate my avatar? One too many fans of Discord shitting up the forums?
I don't recognize your avatar. Maybe you're putting too much importance on its significance and recognizability.
[/quote]Well, I changed the avatar since I've had the original dissed by Howl one too many times.
And, well, I know the stupid OP argument is stupid, but I swear its definition of God isn't totally from inside my own head. I just elided over things not relevant to the aspect I wanted to concentrate on.
God cannot be situated in space or time, or composed of atoms, if He created all of them from scratch. ...according to Christian apologetics that I read years and years ago.
...Eh, I suppose I should just abandon this, and maybe reread The Case for Christ.
You keep saying "God cannot". Based on what?
Quote from: Hoopla on December 17, 2014, 12:02:27 PM
You keep saying "God cannot". Based on what?
Some bullshit argument that I once read that tried to prove God must be the same as what Christians believe. So...nothing, really.
Quote from: Hoopla on December 17, 2014, 12:02:27 PM
You keep saying "God cannot". Based on what?
God would have to stand outside the universe, or he'd just be another natural - if very powerful - critter.
To build a really solid argument about the nature of God, you first would have to get all of your audience to agree on a definition of God... and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God, I can tell you right now that's a fruitless endeavor when it comes to this board.
Basically, you could build an argument according to an "if...then" modus ponens structure, but I could almost lay money on people challenging the "if" no matter how you laid it out, unless you can find a specific argument (for example, the Christian book you refer to) that you are counterarguing (in which case you might find very limited interest in the topic among those here, because you won't be talking to us or about anything most of us are familiar with).
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 03:08:37 PM
and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God,
You guys should stop being wrong. All I'm sayin'.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 03:08:37 PM
To build a really solid argument about the nature of God, you first would have to get all of your audience to agree on a definition of God... and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God, I can tell you right now that's a fruitless endeavor when it comes to this board.
Basically, you could build an argument according to an "if...then" modus ponens structure, but I could almost lay money on people challenging the "if" no matter how you laid it out, unless you can find a specific argument (for example, the Christian book you refer to) that you are counterarguing (in which case you might find very limited interest in the topic among those here, because you won't be talking to us or about anything most of us are familiar with).
Yes, specificity. "In the beliefs of [myth], there is a concept that God is a Mind before Matter, who spoke the universe into existence [reference and citation]. Here's my problem with that..."
At least that way, you're setting up a framework within which to talk. If we want to discuss your argument, we
must take it from the viewpoint of [myth], or else we're refuting a completely different idea.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 17, 2014, 03:13:11 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 03:08:37 PM
and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God,
You guys should stop being wrong. All I'm sayin'.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 17, 2014, 03:13:11 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 17, 2014, 03:08:37 PM
and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God,
You guys should stop being wrong. All I'm sayin'.
That just gave me the biggest grin.
I hope you're right.
But that is an important point. If you want to make a point about God, you have to describe what the strengths and limitations of this God is. There's a big difference between Yahweh and Aten and Ahura Mazda and Brahma and Spinoza's God and....
Even if you're not pinning it to Yahweh, you're still calling it a monotheistic God that created the Universe. That seems specific, but actually isn't. It's just a couple of fingers of parameters.
Note, limitations doesn't mean inability, but at least unwillingness. That's not necessarily an argument against omnipotence. Maybe God could create a paradox where he could make a rock he couldn't move, but why would he? Maybe he abhors paradoxes.
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 19, 2014, 01:17:09 AM
Note, limitations doesn't mean inability, but at least unwillingness. That's not necessarily an argument against omnipotence. Maybe God could create a paradox where he could make a rock he couldn't move, but why would he? Maybe he abhors paradoxes.
He abhors smartasses. We're all fucked.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 19, 2014, 01:40:18 AM
Quote from: Nepos twiddletonis on December 19, 2014, 01:17:09 AM
Note, limitations doesn't mean inability, but at least unwillingness. That's not necessarily an argument against omnipotence. Maybe God could create a paradox where he could make a rock he couldn't move, but why would he? Maybe he abhors paradoxes.
He abhors smartasses. We're all fucked.
:lulz:
:lulz:
Took me a while to get back to this thread. I wanted to clarify my position to LMNO & anyone who commented on my post.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 16, 2014, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: Telarus on December 16, 2014, 03:18:48 AM
I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.
I'm not sure where how you arrived there from Quoteyou can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.
I do not consider Myself
Now to be the same person as Myself
ThePast or Myself
TheFuture. I think that "I" is a narrative-illusion, which is useful within certain contexts. If you've develop language vis-a-vis, patterns of symbols which can be decoded by any audience with the right context, you're communicating to others, even if they are your future iterations.
:lulz: :fnord: :lulz:
Quote from: Telarus on December 21, 2014, 11:46:22 PM
:lulz:
Took me a while to get back to this thread. I wanted to clarify my position to LMNO & anyone who commented on my post.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 16, 2014, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: Telarus on December 16, 2014, 03:18:48 AM
I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.
I'm not sure where how you arrived there from Quoteyou can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.
I do not consider MyselfNow to be the same person as MyselfThePast or MyselfTheFuture. I think that "I" is a narrative-illusion, which is useful within certain contexts. If you've develop language vis-a-vis, patterns of symbols which can be decoded by any audience with the right context, you're communicating to others, even if they are your future iterations.
:lulz: :fnord: :lulz:
However, that still assumes an individual who happens to come from a social species and has a linguistic brain.
Quote from: Telarus on December 21, 2014, 11:46:22 PM
:lulz:
Took me a while to get back to this thread. I wanted to clarify my position to LMNO & anyone who commented on my post.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 16, 2014, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: Telarus on December 16, 2014, 03:18:48 AM
I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.
I'm not sure where how you arrived there from Quoteyou can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.
I do not consider MyselfNow to be the same person as MyselfThePast or MyselfTheFuture. I think that "I" is a narrative-illusion, which is useful within certain contexts. If you've develop language vis-a-vis, patterns of symbols which can be decoded by any audience with the right context, you're communicating to others, even if they are your future iterations.
:lulz: :fnord: :lulz:
Sorry, have to say it: Christ, what an asshole.
I find it hard to believe you do not see your life as a coherent narrative.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 02:18:39 AM
Quote from: Telarus on December 21, 2014, 11:46:22 PM
:lulz:
Took me a while to get back to this thread. I wanted to clarify my position to LMNO & anyone who commented on my post.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 16, 2014, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: Telarus on December 16, 2014, 03:18:48 AM
I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.
I'm not sure where how you arrived there from Quoteyou can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.
I do not consider MyselfNow to be the same person as MyselfThePast or MyselfTheFuture. I think that "I" is a narrative-illusion, which is useful within certain contexts. If you've develop language vis-a-vis, patterns of symbols which can be decoded by any audience with the right context, you're communicating to others, even if they are your future iterations.
:lulz: :fnord: :lulz:
Sorry, have to say it: Christ, what an asshole.
I find it hard to believe you do not see your life as a coherent narrative.
Actually, I have to agree with the first sentence, although I could make no sense whatsoever out of the rest of it.
I'm a very much "in the now" kind of guy. I was just last night realizing how hazy my memories have gotten, especially about shit that happened more than 10 years ago or so. My brain is probably full.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:31:00 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 02:18:39 AM
Quote from: Telarus on December 21, 2014, 11:46:22 PM
:lulz:
Took me a while to get back to this thread. I wanted to clarify my position to LMNO & anyone who commented on my post.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 16, 2014, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: Telarus on December 16, 2014, 03:18:48 AM
I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.
I'm not sure where how you arrived there from Quoteyou can absolutely develop a language in isolation.
I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.
I do not consider MyselfNow to be the same person as MyselfThePast or MyselfTheFuture. I think that "I" is a narrative-illusion, which is useful within certain contexts. If you've develop language vis-a-vis, patterns of symbols which can be decoded by any audience with the right context, you're communicating to others, even if they are your future iterations.
:lulz: :fnord: :lulz:
Sorry, have to say it: Christ, what an asshole.
I find it hard to believe you do not see your life as a coherent narrative.
Actually, I have to agree with the first sentence, although I could make no sense whatsoever out of the rest of it.
I'm a very much "in the now" kind of guy. I was just last night realizing how hazy my memories have gotten, especially about shit that happened more than 10 years ago or so. My brain is probably full.
Living in the now is different in very significant ways from having continuity of personhood, which is more of a personality disorder issue.
For example, people with Borderline Personality Disorder may feel disconnected from their past and future selves to such an extent that they become extremely insecure about their identities and constantly seek external validation.
Like I said, I couldn't make heads or tails out of anything after his first sentence.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 01:17:50 PM
Like I said, I couldn't make heads or tails out of anything after his first sentence.
It was a little disconnected, in a slightly concerning way.
I think it's also important to recognize that your temperament, ie. the set of built-in default attitudes to your environment, are persistent (short of significant brain injury/disease) beyond your memories... you can work to modify your behavioral responses, but you're pretty much stuck with your temperament, as well as the unique set of machinery that is the genetic and epigenetic outcome of your DNA making it into a successful (ie. living) organism. So you can play conceptual games and compartmentalize "past, present, and future" self all you want, but it doesn't alter the fact that you are still the same person, with the same basic personality. Continuity IS, whether intellectual exercises say so or not. Call it a barstool, call it whatever you want, but stoned-ass "whoa man, the me of right now is future me's past and everything is right now and it's like I'm infinity people" musings are essentially a shit waste of time that would be better spent in physical masturbation.
I'M AN INFINITELY EXPANDING TIMELESS CONCIOUSNESS!
/
:fap2:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2014, 01:59:06 PM
I'M AN INFINITELY EXPANDING TIMELESS CONCIOUSNESS!
/
:fap2:
:lulz: I forgot about that fap emote.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 01:29:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 01:17:50 PM
Like I said, I couldn't make heads or tails out of anything after his first sentence.
It was a little disconnected, in a slightly concerning way.
Do you think he stole my drugs?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:24:22 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 01:29:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 01:17:50 PM
Like I said, I couldn't make heads or tails out of anything after his first sentence.
It was a little disconnected, in a slightly concerning way.
Do you think he stole my drugs?
If anyone could do it from this distance, it'd be Telarus.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 02:39:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 02:24:22 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 22, 2014, 01:29:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 22, 2014, 01:17:50 PM
Like I said, I couldn't make heads or tails out of anything after his first sentence.
It was a little disconnected, in a slightly concerning way.
Do you think he stole my drugs?
If anyone could do it from this distance, it'd be Telarus.
Explains why he asked me to look him up in Portland, but then never answered a single PM afterward. The pigfucker's done for my drugs, and now he's ON THE LAM.
:lulz: I love you guys. Really sorry I missed you Rog, they threw mass overtime at us because of the holiday release season. Didn't even get back to the forum to see your message until you had left Portland.
Not drugs, but 12+ hours of testing multiplayer code for the xbox one (and staring at network logs) does have a similar effect. :lulz: Nailed that infinite loop of network traffic after doing XYZ, tho.
Yah, I wasn't so coherent there. Narrative continuity is most definitely useful, and I don't discard it. I just don't think that it tells the whole story and think that the Narrative is actually the most malleable aspect of your personality. Nigel had interesting points about temperament, environmental & genetic factors, and we have to acknowledge that we exist precisely because of those factors. For example, I love that epigenetics has begun to show that groups like Neanderthal are an eddy in the river of Homo Sapiens, and not a branch that dead-ended (http://www.archaeology.org/issues/161-1501/features/2787-israel-neanderthal-epigenome-decoded).
So I don't consider my now self compartmentalized from the past/future versions, but I also don't carry around certain events in my past as if they were central to my personality. Sometimes this just happens by itself. I was very good at basic music(piano/recorder) when I was very small. Now-days I'm great with math and art, but can't summon those musical skills from my childhood.
For a more extreme example, when my ex-wife left me she was drunk and physically abusive. The only time I have ever had to use violence to defend myself from her was the night she left, she had pinned me down into a corner with intent to hurt me, grabbed one of my feet (which I was using to keep distance) and bit my big toe. HARD. The toenail fell off a week later. I then kicked her hard, twice, in the shoulder, which knocked her off balance and gave me distance to get up and use my training to arm-lock her on the bed, tell her that was a very bad idea and that I was going to sleep in the living room, and not to get up and chase me when I let her up. I could not go back to the callcenter I worked at for a week, because we had both worked there and it reminded me of her, which reminded me of the fight. This was back when I was meditating about once a day, so unraveling the constant narrative in my head around this trauma became a big focus. "I don't hit girls" had been a large part of my narrative since highschool. The cognitive dissonance on top of the violent breakup was a bit heavy.
Nowdays, I swordfight with my current fiance. While we mostly use soft boffers with flexible cores (a spendy birthday present from a MA training company), we've also gone at with bamboo shinai and lacrosse gear. She fights hard and I have definitely fallen back into that basic bio-survival state when taking a bruise while sparring with Liv (which the fight with the ex-wife had also triggered). The past memories don't interfere, tho, neither in the sense that I start hesitating (afraid I might loose control), or over-committing due to memories of the adrenal rush/trauma. That took a lot of work, meditating on the memories of the incident and letting them play out, trying not to inject my own narrative, starting over each time I caught myself.
Bringing this back to the topic of Monotheism & the Mind, I see the narratives that push a monotheistic model of deity also push a mono-narrative model of the mind. Specifically, being eternally judged by the eternal deity. I don't think that's how it works. With state-based memory as an example, we are more apt to remember things we did while were drunk... when we are drunk. I think we have distinct sub-routines in our personality that express when we are at work vs when we are at home. Distinct groups of people bring out different patterns of behavior and thought in us. I don't think we're the "same person" when posting/reading this forum as we are when in a very boring office meeting. I think we use the abstraction "I" in order to access the memories of those other sub-personalities.
Sometimes. This shit's been confusing us monkies for thousands of years, OK? :lulz:
I am uncertain as to when I'll get back to Portland. Everything's gone all weird, here.
Well, that doesn't sound ominous or anything.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 24, 2014, 03:56:48 AM
I am uncertain as to when I'll get back to Portland. Everything's gone all weird, here.
Oh dear. :sad:
Telarus, I think that you in particular would get a lot from the book I'm reading right now, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me). One of the things it talks about is, precisely, about how personality is far more stable than we tend to think it is, how we are not as defined by memory as most of us think we are (partly because memories are extremely malleable and error-prone) and the mental mechanics we go through in order to convince ourselves that we are "different people" at different times, rather than the same person in different contexts.
Quote from: Telarus on December 24, 2014, 03:05:21 AM
For example, I love that epigenetics has begun to show that groups like Neanderthal are an eddy in the river of Homo Sapiens, and not a branch that dead-ended (http://www.archaeology.org/issues/161-1501/features/2787-israel-neanderthal-epigenome-decoded).
Also, I think you are misinterpreting that article to a fairly significant degree, because it definitely doesn't say that.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 24, 2014, 03:56:48 AM
I am uncertain as to when I'll get back to Portland. Everything's gone all weird, here.
Oh dear. :sad:
They keep scheduling shit and then cancelling it. I'd just like to know where I'm gonna be on any given week.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 01:36:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 24, 2014, 03:56:48 AM
I am uncertain as to when I'll get back to Portland. Everything's gone all weird, here.
Oh dear. :sad:
They keep scheduling shit and then cancelling it. I'd just like to know where I'm gonna be on any given week.
That's incredibly lame. How the fuck are you supposed to have a life around that?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 01:49:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 01:36:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 24, 2014, 03:56:48 AM
I am uncertain as to when I'll get back to Portland. Everything's gone all weird, here.
Oh dear. :sad:
They keep scheduling shit and then cancelling it. I'd just like to know where I'm gonna be on any given week.
That's incredibly lame. How the fuck are you supposed to have a life around that?
Having a life is like stealing from the company!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 06:43:49 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 01:49:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 01:36:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 24, 2014, 03:56:48 AM
I am uncertain as to when I'll get back to Portland. Everything's gone all weird, here.
Oh dear. :sad:
They keep scheduling shit and then cancelling it. I'd just like to know where I'm gonna be on any given week.
That's incredibly lame. How the fuck are you supposed to have a life around that?
Having a life is like stealing from the company!
Oh fuck no, don't even make my head start to wobble.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 06:43:49 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 01:49:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 01:36:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 24, 2014, 03:56:48 AM
I am uncertain as to when I'll get back to Portland. Everything's gone all weird, here.
Oh dear. :sad:
They keep scheduling shit and then cancelling it. I'd just like to know where I'm gonna be on any given week.
That's incredibly lame. How the fuck are you supposed to have a life around that?
Having a life is like stealing from the company!
Oh fuck no, don't even make my head start to wobble.
Funny thing is, most of us in the Science Gestapo are invested in the work we do. Not as a job, but as an
interest. I bitch about fucked schedules, but they're really just another obstacle.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 26, 2014, 01:53:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 06:43:49 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 01:49:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 01:36:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 24, 2014, 03:56:48 AM
I am uncertain as to when I'll get back to Portland. Everything's gone all weird, here.
Oh dear. :sad:
They keep scheduling shit and then cancelling it. I'd just like to know where I'm gonna be on any given week.
That's incredibly lame. How the fuck are you supposed to have a life around that?
Having a life is like stealing from the company!
Oh fuck no, don't even make my head start to wobble.
Funny thing is, most of us in the Science Gestapo are invested in the work we do. Not as a job, but as an interest. I bitch about fucked schedules, but they're really just another obstacle.
It's because we're Bad People, Roger.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 26, 2014, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 26, 2014, 01:53:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 06:43:49 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 01:49:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 01:36:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 24, 2014, 03:56:48 AM
I am uncertain as to when I'll get back to Portland. Everything's gone all weird, here.
Oh dear. :sad:
They keep scheduling shit and then cancelling it. I'd just like to know where I'm gonna be on any given week.
That's incredibly lame. How the fuck are you supposed to have a life around that?
Having a life is like stealing from the company!
Oh fuck no, don't even make my head start to wobble.
Funny thing is, most of us in the Science Gestapo are invested in the work we do. Not as a job, but as an interest. I bitch about fucked schedules, but they're really just another obstacle.
It's because we're Bad People, Roger.
Good people have hobbies. I mean hobbies that don't involve crappy bourbon, drugs, and poor social conduct.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 26, 2014, 10:08:52 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 26, 2014, 09:17:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 26, 2014, 01:53:53 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 06:43:49 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 25, 2014, 01:49:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 25, 2014, 01:36:37 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 24, 2014, 04:19:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 24, 2014, 03:56:48 AM
I am uncertain as to when I'll get back to Portland. Everything's gone all weird, here.
Oh dear. :sad:
They keep scheduling shit and then cancelling it. I'd just like to know where I'm gonna be on any given week.
That's incredibly lame. How the fuck are you supposed to have a life around that?
Having a life is like stealing from the company!
Oh fuck no, don't even make my head start to wobble.
Funny thing is, most of us in the Science Gestapo are invested in the work we do. Not as a job, but as an interest. I bitch about fucked schedules, but they're really just another obstacle.
It's because we're Bad People, Roger.
Good people have hobbies. I mean hobbies that don't involve crappy bourbon, drugs, and poor social conduct.
I don't understand them.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 26, 2014, 10:13:45 PM
I don't understand them.
It's simple, really, I've studied it. If you go through your entire life being nice to people you don't like and not getting carried away by anything cool or killing a motherfucker when necessity strikes, you get to go to a place after you die where you can act like that some more. For ever. And there's harp music, I am told...And you aren't allowed to lose your shit over it. You wouldn't WANT to. You'd LIKE harp music. And you could hang out with Pat Robertson forever.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 26, 2014, 10:28:05 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 26, 2014, 10:13:45 PM
I don't understand them.
It's simple, really, I've studied it. If you go through your entire life being nice to people you don't like and not getting carried away by anything cool or killing a motherfucker when necessity strikes, you get to go to a place after you die where you can act like that some more. For ever. And there's harp music, I am told...And you aren't allowed to lose your shit over it. You wouldn't WANT to. You'd LIKE harp music. And you could hang out with Pat Robertson forever.
But they don't seem to ever
actually be nice to people they don't like, they're just really passive-aggressively "helpful" and shit.