ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Where did the two rocks come from? I will go out on a limb and speculate that you might have an answer something like one of these:

1. I don't know.
2. They made themselves (via the big bang and its after effects, though that would just beg the question, as it wouldn't explain the big bang).

3. God (not "a god" because apologists always rush to naming their god) (via the unexplained "divine power", though that would just beg the question, as it wouldn't explain God).

But more seriously:
5. You are avoiding the question with this irrelevant red herring.

If there are is a thing and another thing are there really two things if there is no one to do the math to count two things?

No. Because there is no evidence that these two things could exist in a universe without life forms. If you believe there is, please provide evidence. Seriously.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:If you don't know where disembodied mathematics comes from, then to say it exists (independently of thought), is simply an assertion. You are free to make it, but how can you demonstrate it is true?

That is just ludicrous.
Using your line of thinking it would follow that if we don't know how someone died then it is "simply an assertion"that they are dead! And if you don't know where the person you are talking to (in person) came from then it is simply an assertion that there are there. And on the insanity goes!

You are confusing the difference between an unfounded assertion (disembodied mathematics somehow exists, please believe me), and belief in something based on the testimony of a reliable witness. In the case of someone being dead, the reliable witness could be you, or Bones (“He’s dead, Jim”) or the undertaker. In the case of the person you are talking to, the reliable witness is you. Yes, you can believe your eyes!

To use words like “ludicrous” and “insanity” in an attempt to make the unfounded assertion, founded, does not seem applicable to me.

To demonstrate your point, you need to provide evidence for a universe that exists which contains no life forms.
Until such time, my assertion that mathematics is a form of thought, like any other, stands.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I might further point out that without thought, we could not discuss mathematics.

Because that is what "discuss" entails. That is just idiotic. Without thought we couldn't discuss rocks or nothingness either.

It’s another way to say that mathematics requires life forms. Please provide evidence it does not.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote: It could exist without us, but not without someone, or Someone, to think it. If something exists, and there is no one, period, to perceive it, it doesn't matter if it does exist. The rocks themselves (if they existed, but no thinker did) certainly wouldn't care, or benefit.

So now you are going to jump between "can't exist" and "wouldn't matter (to anyone) if it does or not" as if they are the same thing or something?

Can’t exist is one argument. Doesn’t matter is an observation, also true.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
Keep in mind that I am not attempting to explain abiogenesis at this point. Nor will I, any time soon, other than, at some point (not in this thread), to argue that it could not arise by chance (or by the existing properties of matter, or known affinities of chemicals for certain reactions). Arguing how it did arise is a separate topic.

You don't seem interested in engaging in a dialog on "Creationists Read This" in this tread (entitled "Dialog on "Creationists Read This") either.

We’ve really been doing nothing other than discuss two topics extremely relevant to Calilasseia’s “Creationst Read This” article. His article assumes a purely material universe, and attempts to discount any other arguments. I disagree. There is no reason to yield such a point. You, of course, know the topics – the material versus the immaterial, and other ways of knowing (besides the scientific method).

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:What I am arguing is that the immaterial exists, and our thoughts and our feelings are those immaterial things.

Which implies that you are defining "the immaterial" as thoughts and feelings. But you aren't really, if you were then the discussion would be over: "Thoughts and feelings exist? Agreed. You call them "immaterial"? okay then the things you call "the immaterial" exist."

I am not arguing that they are the “ONLY” immaterial things. Just the most obvious examples that influence every second of our lives. You could also say (if you believe in them) that angels, demons and God Himself, are immaterial, but only because they don’t usually make themselves visible. In that sense, they share the same attribute of other immaterial things in that they aren’t visible unless the person thinking, or feeling, chooses to reveal them.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:You are saying, well, yes, the immaterial does exist, but it doesn't have to be viewed as part of thought (or as part of what we would call life, in this case, our intellectual life). And mathematics is your example. You assert it would exist whether we did or not. I suspect you will continue to assert this, but you have no way of providing evidence for it.

More of your attempts at shifting the burden of proof I see.
You reject the idea that that one thing and one other thing would be two things even without any entities with thoughts and feelings having to exist and recognize them as two things then?

See above. The burden of proof for this is squarely on YOUR shoulders. The evidence for my assertion is that mathematics is a form of thought. And thought requires life. Now, if you wanted to say that the knowledge of it is a gift from somewhere (but not nowhere), I would agree. But you aren’t. Somehow it just exists by itself. What is the evidence for this?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:This line of reasoning also attacks my assertion that presuppositions exist, and represent another "way of knowing".

Indicating your complete failure to grasp what "knowing" means, in any remotely reasonable way.

You are simply making an assertion. The postulates of Euclid are presuppositions. "Stealing is wrong" is a presupposition. I maintain both are imminently reasonable. I further claim that many, many things that are true, and are accepted as such, are presuppositions. Where do they come from? Good question, ADParker. Where do they come from? Why are they so universally accepted?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote: For mathematics depends on presuppositions, such as the integers, or the postulates of Euclid.

The integers are presuppositions?! Perhaps you presuppose them.

Now ADParker, we have covered this ground before, including Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell’s Principia Mathematica, in which they prove the integers from other presuppositions. Which is pretty cool, but most people take the integers for granted. And if you prefer to go with their presuppositions, that is fine, but you are still stuck with the presuppositions. You even, barely, admitted as much. Why do you roll your eyes now?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
And in case anyone is losing the context of this entire discussion, I am asserting that we are not simply material, but we are an amalgam of the material and the immaterial.

Sometimes you say it as if you merely mean that we are material beings that have thoughts and feelings, and you call thoughts and feelings "immaterial", which can trivially be accepted as true. But most of the time you clearly mean something more, unfortunately you seem entirely unequipped to argue for anything beyond the trivial case.

See above.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The presuppositions that form the basis for mathematics are an example of the immaterial.

See above.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote: This is problematic for abiogenesis from chemicals alone, because chemical reactions don't explain such awkward things as presuppositions. And without such an explanation, unguided abiogenesis fails as a theory.

Ridiculous assertion.

It seems utterly obvious to me. You are the one making an assertion, namely, that the immaterial (if you were to assume for the sake of argument that it did exist) could somehow evolve from chemicals. One characteristic of the immaterial is will – the will of the person thinking or feeling, and choosing to reveal them, or not. Can you derive will from chemical reactions?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:A consistent them of mine has been that materialism is not sufficient to explain the world as we know it. Other ways of knowing, such as presuppositions, are also required.

Please provide the evidence for your emoticon.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Wilberforce is talking about observables when (for example) he talks about twins. He needs both his 'axiomatic system' of theology, and examples from the, er, 'real' world. Sound familiar?

Calilasseia wrote:Well, at this point, I'm tempted to suggest that thoughts are evidence for the underlying processes that generate them.

The evidence for the thoughts is the (collection of) sentences (or works of art, and so on) that are produced to represent them. We are stuck with representations, pretty-colored pictures of brain-scans notwithstanding to the contrary nohow. We have evidence that the brain is implicated in the production of representations. I'd ask Wilberforce what he has to say about representations, but he evidently knows better than to engage me directly. This may be because he knows me from somewhere else, prior encounters. I don't know that he does, but he stopped responding directly to my comments rather early on, with no reason given.

I’ve had an extended discussion on the brain and the nature of replications within it, with Calilasseia. He believes that current brain research points in the direction of ultimately being able to read verbal thoughts unsolicited. This would imply that the thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions that we can read, with the appropriate technology. I have argued from the beginning of this thread that our ability to withhold our thoughts is evidence of their immaterial nature. That is, they exist, but remain undetectable, unless we choose to reveal them. So yes, there is chemistry involved in the brain, and in our thoughts, but that is not the whole picture. If it were, Calilasseia’s vision would come true. However, I don’t argue from the future, or from projected results. Just the common everyday occurrences we are aware of right now.

I don’t engage you Cito de Pense, because your posts contain many derogatory comments. I am happy to engage on content, if you are willing to focus on that.

Shrunk wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:[

....


What I am arguing is that the immaterial exists, and our thoughts and our feelings are those immaterial things. You are saying, well, yes, the immaterial does exist, but it doesn't have to be viewed as part of thought (or as part of what we would call life, in this case, our intellectual life). And mathematics is your example. You assert it would exist whether we did or not. I suspect you will continue to assert this, but you have no way of providing evidence for it. This line of reasoning also attacks my assertion that presuppositions exist, and represent another "way of knowing". For mathematics depends on presuppositions, such as the integers, or the postulates of Euclid. If you roll it all up into "disembodied mathematics", then you neatly dispose of presuppositions as further evidence of the immaterial (it is evidence for the "disembodied immaterial", which has no relevance to our biological emergence from sludge, according to Shrunk).

And in case anyone is losing the context of this entire discussion, I am asserting that we are not simply material, but we are an amalgam of the material and the immaterial. The presuppositions that form the basis for mathematics are an example of the immaterial. This is problematic for abiogenesis from chemicals alone, because chemical reactions don't explain such awkward things as presuppositions. And without such an explanation, unguided abiogenesis fails as a theory.

A consistent them of mine has been that materialism is not sufficient to explain the world as we know it. Other ways of knowing, such as presuppositions, are also required. Shrunk is attempting to sweep the presuppositions under the "disembodied and therefore not part of life" rug.

What a stupid post. Learn how to think, there's a good boy.

Your only response is an ad hominem attack? Or is your assertion simply indefensible?

Shrunk wrote:Let's be honest: He'll be back. And the odds of every last one of us resisting the lure of SIWOTI syndrome are not good. Especially when someone is this wrong on the internet.

Well, I must apologize for not being able to provide more grist for your mill of late! But you seem a little schizophrenic, Shrunk. First you talk about not being able to feed me straight lines anymore. Then you talk about not being able to resist posting! But, hey, sometimes you feel like a post, sometimes you don't.

I have noticed that you do hold the record right now of the most responses on this thread. You have almost as many responses as I have posts. And you were ahead of me, but then I posted a few times!

It is my observation that I have consistency. I consistently disagree with almost everything that everyone says on this forum! I, at least, have found the discussions quite interesting.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Wilberforce is talking about observables when (for example) he talks about twins. He needs both his 'axiomatic system' of theology, and examples from the, er, 'real' world. Sound familiar?

Calilasseia wrote:Well, at this point, I'm tempted to suggest that thoughts are evidence for the underlying processes that generate them.

The evidence for the thoughts is the (collection of) sentences (or works of art, and so on) that are produced to represent them. We are stuck with representations, pretty-colored pictures of brain-scans notwithstanding to the contrary nohow. We have evidence that the brain is implicated in the production of representations. I'd ask Wilberforce what he has to say about representations, but he evidently knows better than to engage me directly. This may be because he knows me from somewhere else, prior encounters. I don't know that he does, but he stopped responding directly to my comments rather early on, with no reason given.

I’ve had an extended discussion on the brain and the nature of replications within it, with Calilasseia. He believes

WRONG!

I don't bother with "belief", I leave that to mythology fetishists. Instead, I point to empirical evidence informing us that it is possible to obtain information about thoughts, from the biochemical processes responsible for the generation of those thoughts. Empirical evidence you have no answer for, other than to continue peddling fatuous assertions.

Scientists have demonstrated that it is possible to gain information about the still images and video footage that people have observed, without asking them in advance about this. Indeed, the experimental protocols were specifically designed to keep the scientists ignorant of that information, before they conducted their experiments. The experiments worked. It's game over for your fantasies on this subject.

When we have hard empirical data telling us that something is happening, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. Game Over.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:that current brain research points in the direction of ultimately being able to read verbal thoughts unsolicited.

Once again, the papers document in detail, that the experiments work. Game Over.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:This would imply that the thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions that we can read, with the appropriate technology.

Wrong. They are the products of those processes. But, scientists have demonstrated that they can use the information obtained from those chemical processes, to learn what thoughts were generated by those processes. The experiments work. Game Over.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I have argued blindly asserted

Fixed it for you.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:from the beginning of this thread that our ability to withhold our thoughts is evidence of their immaterial nature.

Poppycock. The experiments work. We can find out useful information about a person's thoughts without asking them about this. We can read the data. Game Over.

If your assertions were something other than the products of your rectal passage, those experiments would be impossible to conduct. The fact that it IS possible to conduct those experiments, and those experiments work when scientists conduct them, destroys your fatuous assertions wholesale. Game Over.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:That is, they exist, but remain undetectable, unless we choose to reveal them.

WRONG. Those experiments demonstrate conclusively that scientists can obtain useful information about a persons' thoughts, without being informed in advance about that person's thoughts. The experiments work. If your assertions were something other than a sad, childish fantasy, those experiments would be impossible to conduct. That we CAN conduct those experiments, and those experiments WORK, destroys your assertions. Game Over.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:So yes, there is chemistry involved in the brain, and in our thoughts, but that is not the whole picture.

WRONG.

There is NO evidence for anything other than neurochemistry being involved in thought. Game Over.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:If it were, Calilasseia’s vision would come true.

Excuse me, how often do you need to be told, that the experiments work?

Game. Fucking. Over. It's not some science fiction fantasy, it's experimentally verified peer reviewed science. Game. Fucking. Over.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:However, I don’t argue from the future, or from projected results.

Neither do I. I argue from demonstrated working experiments. Once again, if your fatuous assertions were something other than a childish fantasy, those experiments would be impossible to conduct. We CAN conduct those experiments, and they WORK. Game. Fucking. Over.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Just the common everyday occurrences we are aware of right now.

Oh, you mean "common everyday occurrences" like those experimental results? Which are occurring more commonly as scientists continue their research?

Once again, the experiments work. Game. Fucking. Over.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I don’t engage you Cito de Pense, because your posts contain many derogatory comments.

Ah, synthetic bleating about post style to avoid addressing content. How typically creationist of you.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I am happy to engage on content, if you are willing to focus on that.

Hypocrisy, much? Oh wait, I present hard empirical data from peer reviewed scientific papers, demonstrating that experiments aimed at reading human thoughts WORK, and your response is to pretend that this somehow has zero effect upon your assertions. Yet you have the bare arsed cheek to tell Cito to provide substance? Though having seen this sort of duplicity rampantly on display over the years I've been dealing with creationist apologetics and ideological stormtrooping, I'm no longer surprised to see it here.

The experiments work. This elementary fact destroys your nonsense assertions. Game. Fucking. Over.

Welcome back.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Where did the two rocks come from? I will go out on a limb and speculate that you might have an answer something like one of these:

1. I don't know.
2. They made themselves (via the big bang and its after effects, though that would just beg the question, as it wouldn't explain the big bang).

3. God (not "a god" because apologists always rush to naming their god) (via the unexplained "divine power", though that would just beg the question, as it wouldn't explain God).

But more seriously:
5. You are avoiding the question with this irrelevant red herring.

If there are is a thing and another thing are there really two things if there is no one to do the math to count two things?

No. Because there is no evidence that these two things could exist in a universe without life forms. If you believe there is, please provide evidence. Seriously.

Okay, the concept of the thought experiment is clearly beyond your comprehension level at the moment.

Is there some reason that you think that things can only exist if life forms do as well?

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
To demonstrate your point, you need to provide evidence for a universe that exists which contains no life forms.
Until such time, my assertion that mathematics is a form of thought, like any other, stands.

That non sequitur is almost beautiful!

You need to provide evidence that I am not a faerie. Until such time , my assertion that I am stands.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I might further point out that without thought, we could not discuss mathematics.

Because that is what "discuss" entails. That is just idiotic. Without thought we couldn't discuss rocks or nothingness either.

It’s another way to say that mathematics requires life forms. Please provide evidence it does not.

No it isn't.

By your reasoning:
The fact that it requires thought to discuss mathematics proves that mathematics requires life forms (I will allow that to be a substitute for "things that think" for the of argument, for now).
It therefore follows that:
The fact that it requires thought to discuss rocks proves that rocks require life forms.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote: It could exist without us, but not without someone, or Someone, to think it. If something exists, and there is no one, period, to perceive it, it doesn't matter if it does exist. The rocks themselves (if they existed, but no thinker did) certainly wouldn't care, or benefit.

So now you are going to jump between "can't exist" and "wouldn't matter (to anyone) if it does or not" as if they are the same thing or something?

Can’t exist is one argument. Doesn’t matter is an observation, also true.

Don't bother responding if you are just going to avoid the question.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
Keep in mind that I am not attempting to explain abiogenesis at this point. Nor will I, any time soon, other than, at some point (not in this thread), to argue that it could not arise by chance (or by the existing properties of matter, or known affinities of chemicals for certain reactions). Arguing how it did arise is a separate topic.

You don't seem interested in engaging in a dialog on "Creationists Read This" in this tread (entitled "Dialog on "Creationists Read This") either.

We’ve really been doing nothing other than discuss two topics extremely relevant to Calilasseia’s “Creationst Read This” article. His article assumes a purely material universe, and attempts to discount any other arguments. I disagree. There is no reason to yield such a point. You, of course, know the topics – the material versus the immaterial, and other ways of knowing (besides the scientific method).

Have you even read the post(s) in question?! Because it assumes no such thing. Which of the 27 points even hint at assuming that?!

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
I am not arguing that they are the “ONLY” immaterial things. Just the most obvious examples that influence every second of our lives. You could also say (if you believe in them) that angels, demons and God Himself, are immaterial, but only because they don’t usually make themselves visible. In that sense, they share the same attribute of other immaterial things in that they aren’t visible unless the person thinking, or feeling, chooses to reveal them.

Okay so you define "the immaterial" as "that which aren't visible unless that person thinking, or feeling chooses to reveal them". Kind of odd as it defines the immaterial as a kind of person. Or do you define the immaterial as that which can make itself invisible?
Clear that up and I'm fine enough with that to proceed from there. Hopefully to point one of the "Creationists Read This" posts, which has nothing to do with the immaterial anyway.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:You are saying, well, yes, the immaterial does exist, but it doesn't have to be viewed as part of thought (or as part of what we would call life, in this case, our intellectual life). And mathematics is your example. You assert it would exist whether we did or not. I suspect you will continue to assert this, but you have no way of providing evidence for it.

More of your attempts at shifting the burden of proof I see.
You reject the idea that that one thing and one other thing would be two things even without any entities with thoughts and feelings having to exist and recognize them as two things then?

See above. The burden of proof for this is squarely on YOUR shoulders. The evidence for my assertion is that mathematics is a form of thought. And thought requires life. Now, if you wanted to say that the knowledge of it is a gift from somewhere (but not nowhere), I would agree. But you aren’t. Somehow it just exists by itself. What is the evidence for this?

It doesn't "exist by itself" any more than movement of color exists by itself, those and things of that sort are properties and functions of things that exist. If you can't differentiate the study from that which is studied by now then I don't think I can help you.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:This line of reasoning also attacks my assertion that presuppositions exist, and represent another "way of knowing".

Indicating your complete failure to grasp what "knowing" means, in any remotely reasonable way.

You are simply making an assertion. The postulates of Euclid are presuppositions. "Stealing is wrong" is a presupposition. I maintain both are imminently reasonable. I further claim that many, many things that are true, and are accepted as such, are presuppositions. Where do they come from? Good question, ADParker. Where do they come from? Why are they so universally accepted?

None of which has anything to do with knowledge, and therefore with "ways of knowing."

"Stealing is wrong" is only a presupposition for those who haven't bothered to think about it in any depth, to find out if stealing is really 'wrong' (which also has to be defined of course), and if so why, and what is wrong about it, and in what contexts that is so etc.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
And in case anyone is losing the context of this entire discussion, I am asserting that we are not simply material, but we are an amalgam of the material and the immaterial.

Sometimes you say it as if you merely mean that we are material beings that have thoughts and feelings, and you call thoughts and feelings "immaterial", which can trivially be accepted as true. But most of the time you clearly mean something more, unfortunately you seem entirely unequipped to argue for anything beyond the trivial case.

See above.

Where you say that there could be other things like gods as well?

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote: This is problematic for abiogenesis from chemicals alone, because chemical reactions don't explain such awkward things as presuppositions. And without such an explanation, unguided abiogenesis fails as a theory.

Ridiculous assertion.

It seems utterly obvious to me. You are the one making an assertion, namely, that the immaterial (if you were to assume for the sake of argument that it did exist) could somehow evolve from chemicals. One characteristic of the immaterial is will – the will of the person thinking or feeling, and choosing to reveal them, or not. Can you derive will from chemical reactions?

Possibly. Through brain function complexity probably. If you want to claim that it can't then it is up to you to try to provide evidence for it. Otherwise all you are doing is setting up an argument from ignorance: "We don't know how will comes from chemistry therefore it can't have". Imagine the halts to progress that would have been made if that type of thinking was universal!

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:A consistent them of mine has been that materialism is not sufficient to explain the world as we know it. Other ways of knowing, such as presuppositions, are also required.

Please provide the evidence for your emoticon.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I have argued from the beginning of this thread that our ability to withhold our thoughts is evidence of their immaterial nature. That is, they exist, but remain undetectable, unless we choose to reveal them.

Unfortunately all you have managed to do so far is argue that: If we define the immaterial as that which can be held as undetectable then the fact that some things (thoughts and feelings) can be held as undetectable is evidence of the immaterial. Both tragically circular and trying to define something into existence.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:So yes, there is chemistry involved in the brain, and in our thoughts, but that is not the whole picture.

Which does not follow from you 'arguments', as this is where you play the equivocation game, seeing that at this stage "the immaterial" suddenly becomes something other, and more, than you defined it as in order to argue that there is such a thing earlier.

Dont feed him.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Dont feed him.

I called it, didn't I? (Taking my full share of the blame, too.)

So, after 101 pages I don't think we covered evolution and we could have stopped back with Cal's original thread "Creationists Read This"?

All evidence available shows that thoughts are material, as are emotions.

We don't have to reinvent Bishop Berkley you know.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I’ve had an extended discussion on the brain and the nature of replications within it, with Calilasseia. He believes that current brain research points in the direction of ultimately being able to read verbal thoughts unsolicited. This would imply that the thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions that we can read, with the appropriate technology. I have argued from the beginning of this thread that our ability to withhold our thoughts is evidence of their immaterial nature. That is, they exist, but remain undetectable, unless we choose to reveal them. So yes, there is chemistry involved in the brain, and in our thoughts, but that is not the whole picture. If it were, Calilasseia’s vision would come true. However, I don’t argue from the future, or from projected results. Just the common everyday occurrences we are aware of right now.

Just Wilburs' language about what he thinks he can do with a thought betrays that he doesn't really believe thought to be immaterial. By withholding a thought just what does he think he is withholding? In hiding a thought what is he hiding? If he reveals a thought what is it he is revealing? He obviously thinks that he has thoughts to withhold or reveal so what is it that he actually has if it is immaterial?

If he thinks he can withhold or reveal a thought then he thinks he can manipulate his thought. If immaterial then what does he think he is actually manipulating?

Well the simple fact that plenty of material entities can be "concealed" alone destroys his fatuous apologetics.

Oh wait, scientists had to exert lots of effort in order to isolate electrons, which were "concealed" from humanity for most of human history. Does this make electrons "immaterial"? Does it fuck.

Scientists have to exert lots of effort to detect gravity waves, which were "concealed" from humanity for most of human history. Does this make gravity waves "immaterial"? Does it fuck.

Scientists had to exert lots of effort to detect bacteria, which were "concealed" from humanity for most of human history. Does this make bacteria "immaterial"? Does it fuck.

Ah, but you see Calilasseia; by "concealed" he doesn't just mean "is hidden", but that it is hidden with intent. A shell is "concealed" behind a big rock, but the big rock is not actively "concealing" the shell, it does not require the rock to intentionally elect to reveal the shell to find it.

So it follows that what he is saying is that that thing that makes thoughts "immaterial" is that such mental processes involve mental processes, like intentionally concealing things. So the 'proof' that mental processes are immaterial is that they are mental processes!

Brilliant!....No wait; the other thing.

But of course, I and many others here could hide all sorts of material entities with intent, but that wouldn't magically transform them into immaterial entities. If I take one of his gold coins, and bury it in a location he knows nothing about, that doesn't transform his gold coin into an immaterial entity. But I've concealed his gold coin, and with intent.

I'm reminded here of a particularly hilarious episode of the British TV series Porridge.

For those familiar with the series, I have this episode in mind ...

The absurdity of Wilberforce's position is this. Things only exist as an act of will by god. If god withdraws his fiat for the gold coins, they don't just disappear, they cease to exist! Ergo, there is no such thing as the immaterial. God's will [the energy he exerts to make things happen] and things that exist are all material. Mass is matter, energy is material, and the patterns produced by the interactions of such things: god's internal interactions, god's interaction with the universe, and the universe itself. But if all these things including god are material, then they are detectable by science. The universe is detectable, but strangely, god and his interactions are not!

So whatever perspective is used, whether it be scientific, theological or whatever, the immaterial world cannot exist. But even if the universe is absurd and allows the immaterial, it cannot be detected by ANY means, including the theological! Thus any claim that the immaterial exists is just bluff. A fart of the imagination. Fairy-dust.



All this would be laughable but for the massive and tragic costs to human life and happiness. Although religion and it's memes may not be recognized by the bulk of professional psychological or psychiatric practitioners, there is little doubt in my mind that religions are highly addictive, and can produce psychedelic and narcotic symptoms in a significant proportion of their victims. The dulling of cognition, the denial of facts, and the compromising of natural human kindness and morality produces misery not only to addicts, but to general society.

If this dark cloud of misery caused by religious addiction has a silver lining, it is now known that a severe shock can help people regain their cognition, and perhaps shatter at least some of their religiously-caused delusions.
Ireland, a largely Roman Catholic country has had to come to terms, as many in other countries around the world, with the widespread sexual abuse of children by clerics and the vile attempts by senior officials of that church to attempt browbeating, bribing, threatening, lying to the victims and the general community to avoid the consequences of their crimes.
The recent referendum on marriage equality is a heartening sign that most people realize the moral bankruptcy that is religions and did the natural thing. They defied the instructions of clerics, and freed [at least in part] from religious shackles, voted according to their better natures.
Of course we should not rely on horrible crimes against humanity, and in particular these crimes against the young, to awaken the religious from their stupor. But it shows that religious influence on the human mind, the addiction, and the horrid symptoms can be removed en masse from the communities they infect.

The thing that gets me is he never refers to the universe. You think this deity of his is only concerned about a rock orbiting a crummy little star but never mind the million of other earth like planets.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The thing that gets me is he never refers to the universe. You think this deity of his is only concerned about a rock orbiting a crummy little star but never mind the million of other earth like planets.

Maybe its not mentioned in the great chain of being. Not that the GCOB is an authority on anything, except perhaps how to be a bigot.
I always wondered why women are put below horses? I guess when a god-bother says he is going to ride a filly, he means it literally. I guess they like fillys and kids. Especially kids. I guess a real woman is too much of a challenge. So they project and abuse them. So horse goes before woman, i guess.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The thing that gets me is he never refers to the universe. You think this deity of his is only concerned about a rock orbiting a crummy little star but never mind the million of other earth like planets.

Narcissism elevated to a religion.

Calilasseia wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
I’ve had an extended discussion on the brain and the nature of replications within it, with Calilasseia. He believes

WRONG!

I don't bother with "belief", I leave that to mythology fetishists. Instead, I point to empirical evidence informing us that it is possible to obtain information about thoughts, from the biochemical processes responsible for the generation of those thoughts. Empirical evidence you have no answer for, other than to continue peddling fatuous assertions.

I will only respond at present to this part of the post. We have been over the experimental content before, and I will summarize arguments for and against that, along with many other arguments against thoughts as immaterial, after finishing a few hanging threads (twins, will, possible others).

Regarding belief, one definition is:

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

According to this definition, you believe that current brain research points in the direction of ultimately being able to read verbal thoughts unsolicited.

As far as I can tell, you re-iterate this belief in your post. Is it a fact? That any thought whatsoever can be detected unsolicited? Without prompting or pre-programming?

The research you have quoted definitely DOES NOT demonstrate this. It does demonstrate that under the right circumstances, with a prescribed set of images, that we can detect those images with a certain probability. Relax all these conditions and the whole thing turns to mush. One condition being willing subjects.

In spite of this, you still believe what I have asserted you believe, not because of evidence, but because of your projection of such evidence to unwarranted and undemonstrated conclusions.

As when you say, “Game over”.