winner01:
It does, most of the greatest thinkers of the past were theists.

am glad you know...''past''
well welcome to the present.

winner01:
They wont understand this, they are angry.

so u now believe in the big bang?

raphieMontella:

am glad you know...''past''
well welcome to the present.

Give examples of these present.

raphieMontella:

so u now believe in the big bang?

I believe in the cause of the big bang.

Ranchhoddas:
The heart is for pumping of blood8-)8-)

Materialism.
Not a reasonable stand i must say.

winner01:
I believe in the cause of the big bang.

Since when?

Ranchhoddas:
Since when?

The Big bang is a theory, I dont know if its true or not. I believe in the first Cause. Big bangers can call Him the cause of the big bang. You grab.

winner01:
The Big bang is a theory, I dont know if its true or not. I believe in the first Cause. Big bangers can call Him the cause of the big bang. You grab.

How so? This is clearly at variance with the Genesis account.

winner01:
Give examples of these present.

your usage of modern electronic devicess..(computer science). The mathematical brain behind it..''alan Turing''..

winner01:
I believe in the cause of the big bang.

IOW u believe in the big bang nau!
Thats a stepping stone sha..

Ranchhoddas:
How so? This is clearly at variance with the Genesis account.

You mean "Let there be light"!?

plaetton:


Thoughts are measurable, as far as modern technology has shown us.
Thoughts are electrical brain waves that can be detected, isolated and even manipulated,.and as such, must have mathematical corollaries.

If thoughts didn't have mathematical corollaries, then it would not be possible for chemical molecules with mathematical corollaries to interfere with and influence thoughts. Alcohol and opioids are examples of chemical molecules that influence thoughts.

Haven't you heard of disabled American war veterans that have electrodes wired into parts of their brains, and then use brain signals to control artificial arms and fingers?

Such would not be possible if there is no interface between thoughts, Brain waves and modern electronic apparatus.

Don't you think you are being slightly disingenuous here?

For example, you know that thoughts are not predictable in the mathematical sense in which you set out your first definition of "reality" when I asked you. The fact that chemicals can influence mood for example is still no reason to state that thoughts themselves are observable.

When you observe electrical or wave activity in a brain, you are still not observing thoughts. You are observing activity, but not the thoughts themselves. The thoughts themselves could be anything - and you know that very well. You do not observe a persons thoughts nor are they mathematical or predicable in the way that you are trying to suggest.

It is true that thoughts corelate with electricity for movement. This does show us that thoughts and impulses exist, but in no way are those thoughts themselves observed, or mathematically predictable. Indeed, would you suggest that unobserved or unobservable thoughts do not exist?

This brings me to another mild matter. You have stated that "modern" science enables us to observe these things. This is true as far as the electrical or nervous activity is concerned - in the exact same way as it is true that we can now observe micro organisms whereas we once couldn't. It could be said - if one were to stay consistent with your definition - that such things did not exist and were not real at all - at the time that they could not be observed.

In this same way perhaps it could be said that this or that thought which cannot be observed, reproduced, tested or mathematically predicted, is not a real thing - or was not a real thing before the modern age - mark you, even in the modern age, such thoughts are not observable or predictable in the way that you suggest!

If we may take this further, we may effectively conclude that anything yet to be discovered by science does not exist - or more accurately, anything yet to be capable of observation, quantification and mathematical prediction is not "real."

This is a much too wanting definition of that which is real in this surreal world, and I would say that you are far too realistic in my estimation to adopt such a hollow and terribly wanting definition of reality.

It particularly surprises me that you say that all real things must be quantifiable. By what measures, I wonder.

winner01:
You mean "Let there be light"!?

Among other things; seven-day creation, less than ten thousand years ago.

DeepSight:


Don't you think you are being slightly disingenuous here?

For example, you know that thoughts are not predictable in the mathematical sense in which you set out your first definition of "reality" when I asked you. The fact that chemicals can influence mood for example is still no reason to state that thoughts themselves are observable.

When you observe electrical or wave activity in a brain, you are still not observing thoughts. You are observing activity, but not the thoughts themselves. The thoughts themselves could be anything - and you know that very well. You do not observe a persons thoughts nor are they mathematical or predicable in the way that you are trying to suggest.

It is true that thoughts corelate with electricity for movement. This does show us that thoughts and impulses exist, but in no way are those thoughts themselves observed, or mathematically predictable. Indeed, would you suggest that unobserved or unobservable thoughts do not exist?

This brings me to another mild matter. You have stated that "modern" science enables us to observe these things. This is true as far as the electrical or nervous activity is concerned - in the exact same way as it is true that we can now observe micro organisms whereas we once couldn't. It could be said - if one were to stay consistent with your definition - that such things did not exist and were not real at all - at the time that they could not be observed.

In this same way perhaps it could be said that this or that thought which cannot be observed, reproduced, tested or mathematically predicted, is not a real thing - or was not a real thing before the modern age - mark you, even in the modern age, such thoughts are not observable or predictable in the way that you suggest!

If we may take this further, we may effectively conclude that anything yet to be discovered by science does not exist - or more accurately, anything yet to be capable of observation, quantification and mathematical prediction is not "real."

This is a much too wanting definition of that which is real in this surreal world, and I would say that you are far too realistic in my estimation to adopt such a hollow and terribly wanting definition of reality.

It particularly surprises me that you say that all real things must be quantifiable. By what measures, I wonder.

Let me try to summarize it.
Scientifically, something doesn't exist until we have a way of detecting or observing it or its effects.
The Higgs-Bison particle for instance. Until we were able to detect it's chemical trails, we were safe to assume that it did not exist. What we observed with Super Hedron Collider was the residues, the footprints so to speak , of the particles, which servess as a confirmation of its existence.

Likewise, we do not have to isolate or capture individual thoughts to prove its existence. All we do is to prove that chemical molecules( which have mathematical corollaries) bond with neural cells to influence brain waves, which in turn affects thought patterns, moods , attitudes and behaviors.

With that in mind, we can mathematically design chemical molecules that , for instance, can elicit thoughts of euphoria, suicidal thoughts, and even violent thoughts.

In what other way can we show that thoughts have mathematical corollaries ?

winner01:
The reasons to believe far outweigh the reasons to doubt. We can make a practical list of this reasons if you want.

let's see your practical list

plaetton:


Let me try to summarize it.
Scientifically, something doesn't exist until we have a way of detecting or observing it or its effects.

This discussion began because you asked someone to embrace reality and not delusions.
When asked what reality is, you specifically defined it as that which is observable, quantifiable and mathematically predictable.

This is a false and very misleading definition of reality. Everyone does know that reality comprises so much more than the material laboratory version of reality you are attempting to foist here: in the instant case for example, mankind did not need the modern scientific methods you are referring to in order to know that thoughts exist: you make it appear as though we are only now able to affirm that thoughts exist because of these modern methods of proving them - this is as false as false can be.

Again, I ask you the question - since you said a real thing must be quantifiable - just how exactly do you quantify thoughts? By what scales or measurements, pray tell. What is their weight or density for example? What instruments do you use in determining these quantifiable thoughts?

Likewise, we do not have to isolate or capture individual thoughts to prove its existence.

Oh yes you do, for as I mentioned, with the method you refer to you are not observing or quantifying thoughts at all. You are only observing or quantifying electro-chemical activity which may be associated with them. You are not able to observe one thought as a thought about an eagle, and another thought as a thought about a hawk. You are not able to observe or quantify what those thoughts are about at all - and the very nature of thought means that you are not observing a thought at all unless you are observing what it is about - thought itself refers to things, events, ideas and imagination. Your method does not observe or quantify any of this and more than that - it does not predict any of these nor can it.

With that in mind, we can mathematically design chemical molecules that , for instance, can elicit thoughts of euphoria, suicidal thoughts, and even violent thoughts.

One can introduce substances into the bloodstream that alter mood but these do not lend one to observe or quantify or predict the particular thoughts therein within the mind.

In what other way can we show that thoughts have mathematical corollaries ?

Thoughts do not. The physical activity of a brain does. But thoughts themselves are not quantifiable in that way, and as such they should fail your test of reality.

So should dreams, ideas and emotions as well as a great many other things which are intrinsic to the human experience. Your attempt to squeeze the human experience of reality into a physical mold where only measurable physical things are real, is absolutely unreal to any and every human being, my friend.

Further, Plaetton,

Here is how the subjectivity of the senses and perception sets aside your definition of "Reality" -

In addition to the above, let me raise the question of the subjective view of reality - which you yourself adamantly argued for on this thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments

In this thread, you led a band of reality-subjectivists arguing vehemently that the mind only sees what it is conditioned to see.

This, as I warned you at the time, infers that all things that we see are merely the products of our conditioning.

This would then mean that reality itself is a function of perception, and is therefore an entirely subjective thing, and in a world of over seven billion people we should and indeed do have over seven billion realities.

What is real to you may not be real to the other person and versa.

In this circumstance, I find it impossible for you to be able to judge who is embracing "reality" and who is embracing "delusion". For, given the subjectivity of perception and the subjectivity of the senses, it is very impossible for any person to then describe the subjective apprehension of reality of any other person as a "delusion".

This, is cast in stone, and is absolutely beyond all dispute, surely.

DeepSight:


This discussion began because you asked someone to embrace reality and not delusions.
When asked what reality is, you specifically defined it as that which is observable, quantifiable and mathematically predictable.

This is a false and very misleading definition of reality. Everyone does know that reality comprises so much more than the material laboratory version of reality you are attempting to foist here: in the instant case for example, mankind did not need the modern scientific methods you are referring to in order to know that thoughts exist: you make it appear as though we are only now able to affirm that thoughts exist because of these modern methods of proving them - this is as false as false can be.

Again, I ask you the question - since you said a real thing must be quantifiable - just how exactly do you quantify thoughts? By what scales or measurements, pray tell. What is their weight or density for example? What instruments do you use in determining these quantifiable thoughts?



Oh yes you do, for as I mentioned, with the method you refer to you are not observing or quantifying thoughts at all. You are only observing or quantifying electro-chemical activity which may be associated with them. You are not able to observe one thought as a thought about an eagle, and another thought as a thought about a hawk. You are not able to observe or quantify what those thoughts are about at all - and the very nature of thought means that you are not observing a thought at all unless you are observing what it is about - thought itself refers to things, events, ideas and imagination. Your method does not observe or quantify any of this and more than that - it does not predict any of these nor can it.



One can introduce substances into the bloodstream that alter mood but these do not lend one to observe or quantify or predict the particular thoughts therein within the mind.



Thoughts do not. The physical activity of a brain does. But thoughts themselves are not quantifiable in that way, and as such they should fail your test of reality.

So should dreams, ideas and emotions as well as a great many other things which are intrinsic to the human experience. Your attempt to squeeze the human experience of reality into a physical mold where only measurable physical things are real, is absolutely unreal to any and every human being, my friend.

The bone of contention, reading from your post, is the definition of a thought.
You see, my dear friend, you forget that those 7 letters only attempt to define something. They are not the thing itself.
In other words, a thought is simply unique configuration of brain waves. The brain waves constitute the thoughts.

Therefore, if we can identify, observe, classify, and simulate brain waves, then we are quantifying what you call thoughts.

A few quotes of yours from that thread just to hammer home the point:

plaetton:

My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth.

https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19113797

I don't know how it is possible for you to speak the above and yet state that some people are embracing reality while others are embracing delusion. Did you not say just in the above quote that "everyone has his own inner truth?"

To further show how contradictory your position is, you concluded that post saying:

Therefore, once again, subjective truth , no matter how elegant or sublime, whether it's about god, or whatever it may be, is simply unreliable in the real world.

In short, after saying that the mind can only see what it is conditioned to see, and that everyone thus has his own inner truth, you then say that all of that is "unreliable in the real world". I wonder where you got that "real world" from considering that everyone is actually trapped in his own perceptive world according to you.

This again shows that you are in no position to speak about reality versus delusion.

DeepSight:

Further, Plaetton,

Here is how the subjectivity of the senses and perception sets aside your definition of "Reality" -

In addition to the above, let me raise the question of the subjective view of reality - which you yourself adamantly argued for on this thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments

In this thread, you led a band of reality-subjectivists arguing vehemently that the mind only sees what it is conditioned to see.

This, as I warned you at the time, infers that all things that we see are merely the products of our conditioning.

This would then mean that reality itself is a function of perception, and is therefore an entirely subjective thing, and in a world of over seven billion people we should and indeed do have over seven billion realities.

What is real to you may not be real to the other person and versa.

In this circumstance, I find it impossible for you to be able to judge who is embracing "reality" and who is embracing "delusion". For, given the subjectivity of perception and the subjectivity of the senses, it is very impossible for any person to then describe the subjective apprehension of reality of any other person as a "delusion".

This, is cast in stone, and is absolutely beyond all dispute, surely.

Like cell phones operating in a certain unique frequency range, our individual perceptions differ by inconsequential amounts , because we all operate in the same frequency range.

Like I have reminded you before, chemical molecules like alcohol and opioids do alter and affect perceptions of reality.
Based on that alone, it is obvious that reality is subjective.

No two humans see exactly the same hues of color.

Now imagine other species that have more or less sensory capabilities than we have.
Is their reality different , or, are their realities same as ours , irrespective of their perceptions?

DeepSight:
A few quotes of yours from that thread just to hammer home the point:



https://www.nairaland.com/1493701/philosophy-truth-through-pictorial-arguments#19113797

I don't know how it is possible for you to speak the above and yet state that some people are embracing reality while others are embracing delusion. Did you not say just in the above quote that "everyone has his own inner truth?"

To further show how contradictory your position is, you concluded that post saying:



In short, after saying that the mind can only see what it is conditioned to see, and that everyone thus has his own inner truth, you then say that all of that is "unreliable in the real world". I wonder where you got that "real world" from considering that everyone is actually trapped in his own perceptive world according to you.

This again shows that you are in no position to speak about reality versus delusion.

Don't forget that in this debate, the issue was about the perception of an image.
I still stand by everything I posted, without contradiction.

The issue of today is about beliefs of imaginary things like angry gods and disasters, and scientific understanding of natural geological events.

plaetton:


In other words, a thought is simply unique configuration of brain waves. The brain waves constitute the thoughts.

Therefore, if we can identify, observe, classify, and simulate brain waves, then we are quantifying what you call thoughts.

The brain is not a being of itself able to originate thoughts for its own particular purposes. Sometimes people argue as though the brain were a creature all itself and the rest of the body is only its encasement.

The Brain is a tool, through which the being itself - the actual spiritual human being processes its thoughts and actions within the physical plane.

Therefore you should understand that observing brain activity is similar to observing the inner working of a computer, whereas the thoughts being delivered through it arise from the human being working that computer. Thus one does not observe the thoughts of the human being itself by observing the electrical activity on the computer alone. Even in the case of the written word, the thought in the mind of the human may differ from what is written. The intention may be to deceive or divert. That is how different thought can be from mere electro-chemical activity.

The truth remains that you cannot observe any thought by observing brain activity. You cannot see the thought, or know its form or its meaning. Electrical activity can refer to anything - I am sure you know this - nothing tells you what the thought is, or even if it is a thought at all.

Secondly, you yourself stated that until the science is developed to observe something, then scientifically, it is not real. Now as you know very well that no such science exists currently to see human thoughts as they are - then if you must be consistent with your own argument, you must accede that human thoughts are not to be deemed real as per your criterion. . . . .

plaetton:


Like cell phones operating in a certain unique frequency range, our individual perceptions differ by inconsequential amounts , because we all operate in the same frequency range.

No, I do not agree that the differences in individual perception are only slight or inconsequential! In some small matters such as color perception it may be so, but in the matter of perception of reality itself, the differences are often gargantuan!

Now imagine other species that have more or less sensory capabilities than we have.
Is their reality different , or, are their realities same as ours , irrespective of their perceptions?

Their realities are very different indeed.
Would you advise them to wake up from their "delusion" and embrace "our" "reality"?

winner01:
No. So what do you want me to do?

The Bible and its events reflect the supernatural.

Leave the kid, even mere snake charmers talk to snakes let alone the supernatural Things.

Even ordinary level physics tells us there frequency ranges of sounds the human ear won't pick

So according to their hollow thinking, because they cant pick what the snake says, automatically means the snake cant communicate.
Fallacious assumption.

Smh, for them

Let him keep pasting regurgitated arguments.

I don't even know what you guys are talking about, but I feel the need to make the little correction below

felixomor:
Leave the kid, even mere snake charmers talk to snakes let alone the supernatural Things.

Snake charmers don't talk to snakes. We know this because snakes are deaf. Go to wikipedia to learn how snake charming works.

Even ordinary level physics tells us there frequency ranges of sounds the human ear won't pick

Those frequency ranges can be picked up by scientific instruments. That's how we learnt that dolphins do communicate with each other.

Seun:
I don't even know what you guys are talking about, but I feel the need to make the little correction below

Snake charmers don't talk to snakes. We know this because snakes are deaf. Go to wikipedia to learn how snake charming works.


Those frequency ranges can be picked up by scientific instruments. That's how we learnt that dolphins do communicate with each other.

So, is your human ear a scientific equipment?

^ baloney

Seun:
I don't even know what you guys are talking about, but I feel the need to make the little correction below

Snake charmers don't talk to snakes. We know this because snakes are deaf. Go to wikipedia to learn how snake charming works.


Those frequency ranges can be picked up by scientific instruments. That's how we learnt that dolphins do communicate with each other.

you shouldnt have done this tho..
He's new to ''nature''...so i wanted to let him be

felixomor:


The origin of God is not a problem, once you take your mind out of time, space and matter.
You ask such questions because your brain is solely based on time and space and matter.
Time itself has an origin and God exists before that origin!
He himself is the beginning and the end.

So there is no problem there my brother,

problem in that context refers to humanity's problem of trying to understand what God is, not an actual problem, so no vex.

KingEbukasBlog:

Every religion including atheism is a scam .

is atheism a religion.

MrRichmond:


problem in that context refers to humanity's problem of trying to understand what God is, not an actual problem, so no vex.

I no vex bro. Got what u meant. My submission is aimed at those making such thinking, not u actually