Albert Cipriani

Dear John,
As Lord Palmerston said, half of the world's intellectual errors are caused by the abuse of metaphor. You, sir, are attempting to abuse the Grand Turing Machine metaphor.



Yes. With some reservations, I agree with you here. The traditional Catholic term for it is the "formation of conscience."

But call the process what you will, the resulting consciousness only augments natural law and does not touch upon Divine Law or dogma. If Julian Jaynes said it, I disagree: conscience can by no stretch of the imagination be conceived of as a definition of "that higher authority." -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

John Page

Dear Albert:

1. Perhaps my imagination stretches further.
2. Do you agree that if we can poinpoint the 'god' to a neurological phenomenon the illusion I refer to is substantially proven?

There's been a lot of work that investigates the latter suggestion, there was a very good article (Time, I think) but I can't find it. Here's another link to be going on with <a href="http://www.brainmachines.com/ketamine.html" target="_blank">here</a>

C'mon, open the pod bay doors Albert, please?

Cheers.

Albert Cipriani

Dear John,
The neurological phenomenon of religious awe has been pinpointed. If tomorrow they pinpoint the non-existent conscience center in the brains of sociopaths, what implication would that have? None.

The brain is but one tool free will employs. The difference between it and say stone tools or our fingers is that it functions as a biofeedback loop whereas stone tools or our fingers do not. Tools other than our brains (i.e., every other tool there is) are one-way instruments. They simply do what the brain tells them to do.

But our brain not only uses itself as a tool (remembers, calculates, imagines) but then immediately experiences the effect of its own cause (e.g. experiences pain when the hammer misses the nail and smashes the thumb). But it's a tool nonetheless. Just because it's got this dual capacity, like a double-edged sword, doesn't make it something other than a tool.

If God exists, He cannot be a means to an end, which, by definition, is what all tools are. Our brains are tools. Ergo, to answer your question, god cannot be found within the neurological phenomenon of our brains. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

John Page

1. We don't have free will. If your god "tells you" otherwise, he's the one pulling the strings. QED you don't.
2. I didn't say god could be found within the neurological pehenomenon of our brains, (I used the expression 'god' to denote the concept of god as opposed to any actual god) just that a neurological phenomenon is likely the source of your illusion and the mass psychosis of the catholic church.

Now, about those pod bay doors, just open them a little more...

Cheers.

John Page

Albert, open the pod bay doors!

Ted Hoffman

**jaliet watches silently in frustration as Albert sucks in Tharmas, John Page, Graygomb and Sandlewood into a discussion totally unrelated to the topic "Albert Cipriani, why do you believe in God"
Albert endlessly posits poeticaly rich parallogisms as real, Draygomb et al struggle to disprove them arduosly from fundeamentals, Albert concedes, spews forth more nonsense, they strive again to demonstrate that Albert is wrong, he concedes again as he spews forth more unfounded statements - they sit up again and try to explain to Albert why what he is saying is wrong. The loop continues.**
Albert
Non sequitur.
from dictionary.com:
Information
1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information

For what its worth, I have a Bachelors Degree in Information Science.
I have studied the word information in all its models and meanings: from the MIS concept, Decision Support Systems concept, AI concept, thermodynamics concept etc.
Sandlewood has demonstrated quite satisfactorily what exactly constitutes information (using his rock analogy and composition of elements within the rock).
The concept you are putting forward regarding information is incorrect because it conflates data, memory(stored information), knowledge and pysical matter to mean the same thing. This would result in ambiguity and loss of clear communication. There is some obsession with triunity in all your arguments - if u have some form of unification theory, put it forward, dont beat around the bush.
Albert, instead of insulting us to be too simpleminded to understand your point of view, I think the least you can do is attempt to answer the question I posed at the beginning of this thread.
If indeed you feel that it is too complex to be packaged in a few sentences, sit down, compose something that can be used to explain what your position. Try that, then we can proceed to the fundamentals. Give us a framework.
If you are sincere, I am sure that at least one of us here will understand. But at the very least try us.
It seems to me your tactic here is to make sure we cant hold anything "on" you, so we engage in baseless discussions with no one taking responsibility for a particular concept/ position.
An attempt at an explanation, I believe, is better than none at all.
Try us, then call us simple later.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jaliet,
Such a hard trainer you are. I'm glad not be one of the zebras or rhinos under your charge.

Seriously, I'd never call any of you people simple. This is a most intelligent board. But I can tell, I'm frustrating you. And I apologize.

Contrary to your assertion, I assure you that I am employing no tactics here. I sincerely want to explain and be understood.

To that end, I will take up your challenge anew. This time I will circumvent my metaphysics and try mightily not to be poetic. I'll just lay out my naked arguments, starting from the top.

1) Things exist.
2) Things detect the existence or non-existence of things.
3) Whatever a thing detects, is, in a word, "information."
4) Ergo, information is the means whereby things detect their own existence.

5) A thing that detects its own existence is a contingently existing thing.
6) The relationship between a thing and that which it is contingent upon is an infinitely regressive one.
7) Ergo, what exists contingently could not have always existed.

8) A thing that detects its own existence (per step 4) detects information about itself, not itself per se.
9) Information is necessarily about a relationship between multiple things and not about a single thing.
10) Ergo, things that detect their own existence actually detect a relationship, not existence per se.
11) Ergo, existence, per se, which we'll call "being," cannot be detected.

12) Being is the experience of existence as opposed to the experience of detecting existence.
13) From the experience of existence is derived the experience of detecting existence.
14) In other words, being presupposes existence.
15) Ergo, the experience of detecting existence is derived from the experiential being of existence.
16) The experiential Being of existence is a philosophical term for God (Yahweh = I Am Who Am).
17) Ergo, because something exists, God is.

From #7 and #11, we can conclude that things were created, that is called into existence ex nihilo, and that the existence of things hangs in the balance of their interrelationships, not in their essence. In short, things have no absolute existence, only a relative contingent existence.

To sum up: information infers existence, and existence infers being. It's as intuitively inferential that the information we experience derives from things that really exist as it is that the things that really exist derive from their being. Their being is the experience of God being Himself. His continuous pure act (actus purus, another Traditional Catholic name for God) of expressing Himself is the continual creation all things, all these false gods before Him. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

HelenM

Albert

I don't really understand your argument and I don't see why anything existing proves God exists.

Isn't all my existence proves, that I exist?

How does that also prove God exists? What is the fallacy in tracing all existence back to the Big Bang, which 'just happened' - and we know it's possible because it happened (assuming the science is right) - that it happened only proves that it happened, not that "God did it".

What am I missing?

love
Helen

Draygomb

For once I understood what you were saying, that is right up until #15, where I wondered what the "experiential being of existence" was. Then #16 defined it as god, so #15 really reads

15) Ergo, the experience of detecting existence is derived from God.

I fail to see how that follows from anything you've said. You might as well define God as that which exists because things exist.

Ted Hoffman

AlbertI will overlook the insult about me training rhinos.
Maybe its a perverted attempt at being funny. I sympathise with you for such an atrocious sense of humour - if you meant it as a joke.
Otherwise, you sound serious for the first time in this topic. For that, I am glad.
I read somewhere (6 yrs ago) about the hindu concept of God about us existing because "he" exists - the analogy of the shadow and a human being is what they used. I was fascinated at the idea at the time...
You sound like you hold a similar concept: That we aren't "real" but are simply evidence of the existence of something real.
Anyway back to you:
agreed
Not true, what you mean to say, I believe, is that living things detect the existence or non-existence of things.
A pen cannot detect a hen.
So, as this premise is (without rephrasing) its a false premise. Any argument built from it therefore, fails too.
detect: To discover or ascertain the existence, presence, or fact of
Information, in this context means what? From my understanding, it could mean:
1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.

Electrical signals(from the senses) DO NOT constitute information. They must be processed. Otherwise, they can be referred to as data or signals. For example, a retarded personhaving a gun pointed at him can see the gun but may not react to the danger. We can say he cannot process the visual data to get any information and make a choice. Thus detecting the existence of something does not constitute information.
I basically disagree with your flippant use of the word information. Please rephrase that point for accurate meaning.
(Living) things detect their existence VIA the SENSES. Not via information. To detect ones own existence requires consiousness. A being that detects its existence is a sentient being. Detecting ones own existence IMHO involves knowing ones place in the cosmos - and this requires senses.
A tin exists, but CANNOT detect its own existence.
Even if it is programmed to detect its surrounding, its not able to know what each information means - THE PROGRAM - is the one that knows, NOT the tin. Thus a TIN, or a computer for that matter cannot detect its existence, but a program can help a computer to "detect" its surrounding. Even then, one will be merely simulating detection of existence.
Thus however much info a computer has, its not enough to say it can detect its own existence.
In any case, existence is a fairly abstract concept - like poetry or beauty.
Thus I assert that non-living things cannot detect their existence.
This is not entirely true. In fact its UNTRUE. Descartes "cogito ergo sum"? defines existence not based on the detection of other exixting things, but on being able to think. I agree with descartes. Even when all our senses are dead, but our minds are still active/ alive, we can detect our own existence.
You have diminished the ability to detect ones existence to be based on the ability to detect other existing things. Thus making every thing contingent on the existence other living things.
Considering descartes parody, this is incorrect because it narrows existence to a few senses.
A temporal thing with a transitory existence cannot have non-temporal(infinite) relationships. ie I can only detect that fire is hot so long as I am alive. The relationship between me and fire cannot be infinite since its dependent on my being conscious/ alive (something temporal).
So it cold be regressive, but not infinitely regressive. I would appreciate further explanation if you have a valid point.
This is simply a non-sequitur. In any case, based on your reasoning,if something exists for 200 billion years, then it only gets to detect its existence after objects start existing in 10 billion years, then it detects those objects, you would ask it:
albert: so you can detect things?
thingi: yes albert
albert: really? and for how long have you been detecting these things?
thingi: for 10 billion years
albert: (scribbling furiously on his dog-eared book) you have detected your existence for 10 billion years therefore you have existed for 10 billion years.

Of course albert would be wrong.
Like he is now.
Whats the point you are trying to make by including the second part of this statement?
that the two points are mutually exclusive? That the latter does not necessarily follow from the former?
Are you saying that info cannot be about a single thing? what about "a hot day" is hot a thing? is a day a thing?
Does that statement contain info?
[quote]10) Ergo, things that detect their own existence actually detect a relationship, not existence per se.
11) Ergo, existence, per se, which we'll call "being," cannot be detectedquote]
NOT True - because your second premise failed. Ergo, incorrect.
another parallogism.
being means "To exist in actuality; have life or reality"
eg. "My being sharper and younger than albert gives me confidence"
or "albert being in the toilet attracts flies"
So your statement above is basically useless because you are trying to redact the meaning of the word being to have another meaning - a metaphysical one perhaps.
Even if U were right, does it mean that if we have the experience of seeing others detecting their own existence (which we have/can), then we have the quality of being while they have not?
A paralogism and a tautology.
Still fails because the earlier ones failed.
I disagree with the use of the word presuppose. I think you mean "depends on" because we dont make assumptions when assigning "being" to things. Unless thats what you are saying, I dont believe we presuppose existence when thinking of being, but being basically means (not presupposes) existence of a sentient thing they are concepts that go hand in hand. Like drinking and fluid. When we say he is drinking. We are not presupposing that he is drinking a fluid, but the word drinking means that it is a fluid being taken in NOT anything else. Semantics saves us the danger of having to presuppose.
So again, being DOES NOT presuppose existence, but implies existence, or MEANS existence.
The experiential being of existence? The definite article "the" means you are referring to something specific. From 1 to 14, we havent mentioned any-thing specific or any specific being. That means this statement is unfounded and not based on 1-14, making 1-14 completely useless as far as supporting this conclusion is concerned.
If you are merely referring to being being experiential (derived from experience), it still fails because your use of the word "experience"/ detecting, excluses the mind - which does not require existence of other objects to think.
Which is incorrect - from descartes parody.
Please provide links to philosophical sites or books that support this assertion.
Until you do that, this remains a baseless claim and is not a dmissible as a factual or even valid premise.
Non sequitur. Blatant confabulation.
If your premises were valid, you could have said "17) Ergo, something exists, because other things(which it can detect) exist."
You have based your irrelevant conclusion on false premises - which do not even lead to the conclusion.
Therefore no 17 is incorrect.
Try again.
QM, BB and inflationary theory have demonstrated that matter can arise ex-nihilo without God.
You don't have to believe in a Myth any more Albert.

In summary, you need to be clear on what information means, then what a thing means, then what being is.
Because even if you were right, it would mean God detects us therefore God exists, thus Gods existence is contingent upon our existence.
On a serious note, if your argument were valid, it would cut both ways. There is nothing that would make Gods existence be on a higher plane than ours.
Except, we don't experience God.
Helen Beautiful to have you back.