Little Idiot wrote:I accept NS except where it tries to build on the materialistic assumption that there is a physical cause for consciousness. I even accept that it is correct for NS to look for this physical cause, I just point out it will not be found, because it doesnt exist.
Well, you should stop talking about "consciousnessness", yourself, because you cannot say anything meaningful about it, least of all what "causes" it. Zombies, again.
Little Idiot wrote:Every physical thing is also a mental thing, but not all thoughts are physical things.
And you really cannot tell us how you know which is which. This is why I call your stuff "pseudo-philosophy". It's not. It's an arbitrary taxonomy of experience.
Little Idiot wrote:Just so, I have no duality between physical and mental, as they are all mental. Physical is a subset of mental.
But it's an arbitrary taxonomy, because all you do is say that a distinction exists, and make no attempt to show how you distinguish one from the other. You hide behind saying "it's all mental", but don't say how you assign any part of it to your so-called "subset". In other words, you are bullshitting us about having a "subset". What is it that puts a particular experience into the subset you've designated for it by calling it "physical"? You've made your duality, now sleep in it.
Little Idiot wrote:The physical is a form of reality. I do not deny that it exists, I assert it does exist. I even say its a form of the (hypothetical) changeless reality.
There's no point, however, in saying so, because you have nothing to say about how you classify some of your mental world into the "physical". If you could, you might allow that brains are physical and interact with the physical. You would also have to say that souls interact with the timeless unity, which would have everyone laughing at you some more.
How do you make your classifications? That's work that you need to do, or else you are just preaching your religion. That's allowed here, apparently.
colubridae wrote:If you listen carefully you can hear the distant turbo whine of theophilis's rectum spooling up to produce some helpful assertions for his drowning soul mates.
+1
colubridae wrote:all we need now is lamont and we'll have a royal flush.
Turbocharged! So that's where all those sounds of sucking come from! I've heard some references to being "flushed with success". Or is that the suck-cess-pool?
jamest wrote:GrahamH wrote:Why do we have brains that play no part in experience?
Of course they play a part. They play the part of appearing to control bodily functions. They play the part of appearing to cause experience itself, to people such as yourself.
You're serious, aren't you, James. There are actually entities in your universe necessary and sufficient for creating appearances. What's wrong with the idea of screwing-off appearances entirely? The point is not that the empirical world is a representation of reality. The point is that it is all we have, except for making up shit about higher realities, by means of which you and LI are here to entertain us.
GrahamH wrote:jamest wrote:GrahamH wrote:
Why do we have brains that play no part in experience?
Of course they play a part. They play the part of appearing to control bodily functions. They play the part of appearing to cause experience itself, to people such as yourself.
Have you realised why you get nowhere in these discussions? It is because you are going against the will of god in attempting to reveal the truth to people not meant to know it. What are you thinking? People like you are forcing X-god to make more shit up just to cover for the likes of you.
People who want to prove the existence of the god-thingy are a breed apart. Faith is not good enough for them. It's the same story every time. Faith-heads will approach skeptics with the huge song-and-dance about the logic and/or evidence for the god-thingy. Then when you sign up, question time is over. This is strictly a ploy aimed at unbelievers.
Those of you who used to be part of a faith community may recall this. Once you're in the body politic, questions and logic are not where it's at. Me, I never had it for a moment.
Sorry, JamesT and LI, but your respective brands of theology, individually and collectively, suck broken, shriveled, dead dingo dicks with prodigious enthusiasm.
jamest wrote:
What am 'I' thinking? I'm thinking that the will of God does not necessarily desire that 'humanity' sleeps forever. Such a state-of-affairs could only lead, ultimately, to the complete demise of experience.
There is credibility in the idea of God wanting to forget itself, for a season. Alas, you appear to be a leaf in the autumn.
Yeah, sure. But this is where your powers of apologetics run out of steam. At the end, there are things that cannot be explained. There always are. Why go through the whole song and dance with the so-called "logical arguments", when in the end, one just must believe the credibility of an idea that God wanted to forget itself for a season.
You might have spared us the drama, James.
