Failure of "I".

[Eodnhoj7]

I think that Felix Guattari brought a good example of how "I' and consciousness are actually split into multiple heterogenic components, nevertheless
composing one whole assemblage:
“When we drive, we activate subjectivity and a multiplicity of partial consciousness connected to the car ‘s technological mechanisms. There is no “individuated subject” that is in control of the driving. If one knows how to drive, one acts without thinking about it, without engaging reflexive consciousness…We are guided by the car’s machinic assemblage. Our actions and subjective components (memory, attention, perception, etc) are “automatized”, they are a part of the machinic, hydraulic, electronic, etc apparatuses, constituting non-human parts of the assemblage. Driving mobilizes different processes of conscientization,
one succeeding the next, superimposing one onto the other, connecting or disconnecting according to the current events of driving."

The "splitting" of "I" observes this split being inverted into a connection of "I" when viewing the "I" as one. The splitting of "I" shows "I" as existing through time as time.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...don't you understand a tape recording machine.

In principle, but I've never sat down, had a pint and a chat with one.
The fact that we're autonomous? Humans have made automobiles that are autonomous. In addition, sunflowers follow the sun. I guess you should have a pint with either one of them. Your point is absurdly laughable. That we are a more advanced sunflower, and more so than our self driving cars, is no cause to jump to conclusions. A.I. anyone? We are programed the same way, remember back to your day one? I don't think so! Put a baby in a closet for 50 years with absolutely no human contact, just food and water through a slot, then let them out to sit down, drink a pint and have a chat. Yeah right! Just like the flower, though maybe ever so slightly more advanced.

Why an atheist lends credibility to a ghost in the machine theory, is beyond me. Well? Why?

Well, just as I'm the sort of atheist that doesn't believe that god exists, rather than one who believes that god doesn't exist;
Sorry but those two positions are in fact the same thing. It would be far better to say that you don't have any evidence that god exists, which would be the most truthful scientific proposition based upon observation; empirical evidence, us being similarly science minded, I would think.

I don't believe that mind is supernatural, rather than believe that mind isn't supernatural.
Again you try to split hairs at the micro or maybe nano level, but I see it as a fail. As those two are interchangeable. I'm beginning to believe that secretly you want to be/are a theist. Or it certainly seems to possibly be the case..

The abilities we have are due to the biochemistry of the body, the brain being no exception.

Maybe so, but that still leaves the question of how the brain generates consciousness.
Again, I'm convinced that the concept of consciousness (1625–35) is a falsehood, born of those that believe in a god.
"n. 1630s, "internal knowledge," from conscious + -ness. Meaning "state of being aware" is from 1746." --www.dictionary.com--

"consciousness (n.) 1630s, "internal knowledge," from conscious + -ness. Meaning "state of being aware of what passes in one's own mind" is from 1670s; meaning "state of being aware" of anything is from 1746. Consciousness-raising is attested from 1968." --www.etymonline.com--

As you can see a sunflower can easily be said to be aware of the sun. Consciousness??

"The origin of the modern concept of consciousness is often attributed to John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690." --Wikipedia--

John Locke on Reason and Faith
"My main focus in this talk is the religious ideas of John Locke (1632-1704)."

[uwot]

...don't you understand a tape recording machine.

In principle, but I've never sat down, had a pint and a chat with one.

The fact that we're autonomous?

No; the fact that we can have a conversation.

Humans have made automobiles that are autonomous. In addition, sunflowers follow the sun. I guess you should have a pint with either one of them. Your point is absurdly laughable.

You wanna fight?

That we are a more advanced sunflower, and more so than our self driving cars, is no cause to jump to conclusions. A.I. anyone? We are programed the same way, remember back to your day one? I don't think so! Put a baby in a closet for 50 years with absolutely no human contact, just food and water through a slot, then let them out to sit down, drink a pint and have a chat. Yeah right! Just like the flower, though maybe ever so slightly more advanced.

Well, unless you have performed this experiment, you have jumped to a conclusion.

Why an atheist lends credibility to a ghost in the machine theory, is beyond me. Well? Why?

Well, just as I'm the sort of atheist that doesn't believe that god exists, rather than one who believes that god doesn't exist;

Sorry but those two positions are in fact the same thing.

No Spheres, they are not. One more time, and very slowly:
I do not believe that god exists.
I believe that god does not exist.

It would be far better to say that you don't have any evidence that god exists, which would be the most truthful scientific proposition based upon observation; empirical evidence, us being similarly science minded, I would think.

Not if you think having a pint with your car is a good idea.

I don't believe that mind is supernatural, rather than believe that mind isn't supernatural.

Again you try to split hairs at the micro or maybe nano level, but I see it as a fail. As those two are interchangeable. I'm beginning to believe that secretly you want to be/are a theist. Or it certainly seems to possibly be the case.

Ok. Now you're just being insulting.

The abilities we have are due to the biochemistry of the body, the brain being no exception.

Maybe so, but that still leaves the question of how the brain generates consciousness.

Again, I'm convinced that the concept of consciousness (1625–35) is a falsehood, born of those that believe in a god.

Spheres, I concede that it is possible that you are responding to stimuli in the same way that a flower follows the Sun. In fact, some of what you say persuades me that it is quite likely. However, the challenge is to demonstrate that a sunflower has the same experience that you have when you turn your face to the light.

[uwot]

Dunno if this'll help, but try this, Spheres:
I do not believe that god exists-but if you provide some compelling evidence, I will change my mind.
I believe that god does not exist-because I think there are compelling reasons why he doesn't.

[SpheresOfBalance]

In principle, but I've never sat down, had a pint and a chat with one.

The fact that we're autonomous?

No; the fact that we can have a conversation.
I see that you've ignored my point of your inabilities on day one. Programing, just like I've said.

Humans have made automobiles that are autonomous. In addition, sunflowers follow the sun. I guess you should have a pint with either one of them. Your point is absurdly laughable.

You wanna fight?
What's fighting got to do with anything? Do you know the difference between an argument and a fight?
fight
verb
1. (no object) Take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons.
‘the men were fighting’; ‘protesters fought with police’; ‘Cameron fought back as hard as he could’
argue
verb
1. (reporting verb) Give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.
(with clause) ‘sociologists argue that inequalities in industrial societies are being reduced’
(no object) ‘he argued for extra resources’
(with direct speech) ‘‘It stands to reason,’ she argued’ --en.oxforddictionaries.com--
So it's quite impossible for us to fight, unless you want to make the trip over the very big pond.

That we are a more advanced sunflower, and more so than our self driving cars, is no cause to jump to conclusions. A.I. anyone? We are programed the same way, remember back to your day one? I don't think so! Put a baby in a closet for 50 years with absolutely no human contact, just food and water through a slot, then let them out to sit down, drink a pint and have a chat. Yeah right! Just like the flower, though maybe ever so slightly more advanced.

Well, unless you have performed this experiment, you have jumped to a conclusion.
While I have not, others have, well kinda. It wasn't an experiment, it was the way they treated their child. I just read the report! So "fact," my friend!

Why an atheist lends credibility to a ghost in the machine theory, is beyond me. Well? Why?

Well, just as I'm the sort of atheist that doesn't believe that god exists, rather than one who believes that god doesn't exist;

Sorry but those two positions are in fact the same thing.

No Spheres, they are not. One more time, and very slowly:
A falsehood, it was exactly the same speed! I thought you understood science and logic; not!

I do not believe that god exists.
I believe that god does not exist.
You simply revised and reiterated!

"That" can be eliminated and still get the message across.
I do not believe, god exists.
(Here you modify the verb "do believe" with the adverb "not" making it the opposite of "believe.")
I believe, god does not exist.
(Here you modify the verb "does exist" with the adverb "not" making it the opposite of "exist.")

They're the same thing, you either speak of belief or nonbelief and either god existing or not existing.
To say that you don't believe in somethig, is the same as you believing in not something. You're just switching the negative from one clause to the other.

It would be far better to say that you don't have any evidence that god exists, which would be the most truthful scientific proposition based upon observation; empirical evidence, us being similarly science minded, I would think.

Not if you think having a pint with your car is a good idea.
You're confusing the known with the unknown, which mankind has been doing for millenia. I thought you were smarter than that.

I don't believe that mind is supernatural, rather than believe that mind isn't supernatural.

Again you try to split hairs at the micro or maybe nano level, but I see it as a fail. As those two are interchangeable. I'm beginning to believe that secretly you want to be/are a theist. Or it certainly seems to possibly be the case.

Ok. Now you're just being insulting.
That's funny! Your a man of science, you're not insulted.

The abilities we have are due to the biochemistry of the body, the brain being no exception.

Maybe so, but that still leaves the question of how the brain generates consciousness.

Again, I'm convinced that the concept of consciousness (1625–35) is a falsehood, born of those that believe in a god.

Spheres, I concede that it is possible that you are responding to stimuli in the same way that a flower follows the Sun. In fact, some of what you say persuades me that it is quite likely.
That's funny. Thanks for the slight? But at least 'you,' know better.

However, the challenge is to demonstrate that a sunflower has the same experience that you have when you turn your face to the light.
But the really funny thing is that you seem oblivious of what you are, what we all our. Like all the rest, your fear of not being in control of your life, (your death), as if we actually can be to any large degree, has allowed you to think more of what we are, than what we actually are. It's a very common error, being far too full of oneself.

We're just like the sunflower, except that we're much more complicated, which doesn't necessitate consciousness, like you that are so full of yourselves, choose to simply believe. Sure it seems to elevate you into the mysterious, ooooooohhhhhhhhh! VooDoo! A ghost in the machine. It's simply electricity, electron flow between synapses, biochemistry, that place where it all comes together, i.e., sensors, memory and the innate drive to survive; to choose between those recordings we've committed to memory, so as to best quell our fears, even if it calls for denial.

I'm sure of it!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Dunno if this'll help, but try this, Spheres:
I do not believe that god exists-but if you provide some compelling evidence, I will change my mind.
I believe that god does not exist-because I think there are compelling reasons why he doesn't.

OK, I have one for you: We exist, right? We create, right? I know some idiots destroy, but let's forget the insane for a second. This is proof that in fact the universe does contain beings that exist and can create. So then why is it so unbelievable that we're not the only ones. I've already shown you the relativity of size, in my thought experiment long ago. We know there are beings (amoebas, paramecia, etc) in the micro that are not apparent without man made apparatus to increase your sensing ability. How can we be sure there aren't beings much larger than us, to which we are the amoebas and paramecia, that are actually our creators/creator. That we cannot currently fathom anything beyond our universe, doesn't necessitate that there isn't. How long ago was it that we had no idea of how utterly large our universe is? Hubble? And can we be sure we now know of it's fullest extent? No! Face it, you're stuck with visions of grandeur dancing around in your head, of how all knowing and powerful we are, yet it's a joke. We can't even balance our own symbiotic biosphere for want of power over others, things and sloth, to name but a few, as if these things shall cause us to live forever, yet their pursuit might just ensure our premature annihilation. We're some seriously selfish and deluded Fucks. And I mean that with a capital "F!"

I'm agnostic, I believe neither theists nor atheists know if there is or isn't a creator of this universe. What, seriously, it all started with a singularity that sprang from what, nothing, seriously?

I never said I have evidence, no will I ever, but what's that got to do with it, absolutely nothing!

My friend, there is a very big difference between saying:

There is a god.
There isn't a god.
and
I believe there is a god.
I believe there isn't a god.
and
You can't say there is a god.
You can't say there isn't a god.
and
You can say that you either believe or don't believe there is a god, but that lends no necessary credibility to there being or not being a god.
(Where "say" equates to knowing with certainty due to empirical evidence.)

The lack of evidence proves absolutely nothing. I mean do I really have to remind you of the history of human knowledge? Wake up son! I trust you to know better; man of science!?

Nothing is ever known before it's known. And not currently knowing, doesn't necessarily preclude it being capable of being known. Like it or not, some things are way too large for current humanity to "know!"

And no I havn't forgotten that you speak of your belief, not your knowledge.

If you will, list your compelling reasons. Thank You!

[uwot]

If you will, list your compelling reasons. Thank You!

This is getting tedious, Spheres. If you are going to perform hack surgery on my posts, cut off their balls and then dismiss them as impotent, I am wasting my time. I do not need a list of reasons for being an atheist. One is plenty:

I don't think the evidence and arguments offered for the god hypothesis are strong enough to conclude that god exists. Therefore I can honestly say:
I do not believe that god exists.

However; there are some people who think the evidence and arguments offered against the god hypothesis are strong enough to conclude that god does not exist. Therefore they can honestly say:
I believe that god does not exist.

I would go so far as to say that the problem of evil is enough to rule out the personal, caring and omnipotent god that theists typically espouse; but as for 'creator of the universe'? I don't believe that either, but who knows?

[SpheresOfBalance]

If you will, list your compelling reasons. Thank You!

This is getting tedious, Spheres.
True specific arguments tend to be, instead of simply stating vague generalizations, as most around here tend to do. Either one genuinely cares about a topic or they don't. It's up to each individual to decide what quantity of truth they want to live by. Some prefer the bliss that is their ignorance. (For some it's better to travel a road of illusions halfway, than to complete a truthful journey, only to find they've arrived at a destination, not of their intentions.)


If you are going to perform hack surgery on my posts, cut off their balls and then dismiss them as impotent, I am wasting my time.
Often, isn't each ones opposing rebuttal, relatively, due to unique perspectives, hack surgery? As far as wasted time is concerned, it's obviously your call as to what's important and what's not, as with us all. On this topic I've seen that agnosticism is the only honest position, that is to say, when it comes to proofs.


I do not need a list of reasons for being an atheist. One is plenty:
You're the one that said you had "compelling reasons." I just wanted you to list them. Of course it's your choice if you don't care to.


I don't think the evidence and arguments offered for the god hypothesis are strong enough to conclude that god exists. Therefore I can honestly say:
I do not believe that god exists.
That's fine and dandy, but how strong is the evidence and arguments that one can argue, for the non-god hypothesis? And let me clarify, I don't believe in anything any particular archaic bible says about a supposed god. I care more about the possibility of a mindful creator of the universe, not mans god. I mean we all know what man's god has been, I mean just simply acknowledge man's history for it to become clear; from relative ignorance and barbarism, to ever increased knowledge and civility. Which of course the philosophy contained within the bibles had a hand. That's all they're good for, simply another philosophical viewpoint.


However; there are some people who think the evidence and arguments offered against the god hypothesis are strong enough to conclude that god does not exist. Therefore they can honestly say:
I believe that god does not exist.
OK, I just wanted you to share them with me, simple. I would like to know how compelling those things are that convinced you.


I would go so far as to say that the problem of evil is enough to rule out the personal, caring and omnipotent god that theists typically espouse;
"Personal?" What do you mean by that? And also what do you mean by "problem of evil?"
but as for 'creator of the universe'? I don't believe that either, but who knows?

Surely we agree, "who knows!" And that's precisely why I've chosen the word agnostic, so as to fit the way logic, at least in my mind, seems to bear out the truth of the topic. It seems to be the most honest, logically/scientifically speaking, no? It speaks of no one currently being able to 'know,' no?

Edit 1&2: Typos

[SpheresOfBalance]

If it was so self-less than why rub it everyone's face.
Selflessness has nothing to do with it, though it could be a lesson. Oh that's novel. Then some shall never understand it!


The USSR says the same thing "selflessly protecting you from the U.S.
Of course, we each probably had submarines which carried nuclear weapons off each others shores. But my job was tracking, and if need be, destroying the ones off our and our allies coasts. And we found plenty of them. Vaporized while you eat Christmas dinner, anyone? Of course doing the job I had no such dinners. And my exposure to certain chemicals has left me not as I was originally.

But as usual, the real question is which side was the instigator of the offensive. And which was simply defending.


Capitalist pigs".
Yeah, I hate those fuckers too! They're the biggest cowards of us all.

[Eodnhoj7]

If it was so self-less than why rub it everyone's face.
Selflessness has nothing to do with it, though it could be a lesson. Oh that's novel. Then some shall never understand it!


The USSR says the same thing "selflessly protecting you from the U.S.
Of course, we each probably had submarines which carried nuclear weapons off each others shores. But my job was tracking, and if need be, destroying the ones off our and our allies coasts. And we found plenty of them. Vaporized while you eat Christmas dinner, anyone? Of course doing the job I had no such dinners. And my exposure to certain chemicals has left me not as I was originally.

But as usual, the real question is which side was the instigator of the offensive. And which was simply defending.


Capitalist pigs".
Yeah, I hate those fuckers too! They're the biggest cowards of us all.

Oh...I thought you actually had an argument about the subject...not you trying to justify your life to me.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If it was so self-less than why rub it everyone's face.
Selflessness has nothing to do with it, though it could be a lesson. Oh that's novel. Then some shall never understand it!


The USSR says the same thing "selflessly protecting you from the U.S.
Of course, we each probably had submarines which carried nuclear weapons off each others shores. But my job was tracking, and if need be, destroying the ones off our and our allies coasts. And we found plenty of them. Vaporized while you eat Christmas dinner, anyone? Of course doing the job I had no such dinners. And my exposure to certain chemicals has left me not as I was originally.

But as usual, the real question is which side was the instigator of the offensive. And which was simply defending.


Capitalist pigs".
Yeah, I hate those fuckers too! They're the biggest cowards of us all.

Oh...I thought you actually had an argument about the subject...not you trying to justify your life to me.

The site wouldn't allow me to respond in the usual way, the message nesting was too deep. So I chose to only respond to your dumbassery. It seemed to be the most fun. It's no surprise that you're lost. You'll only get from me that which you beg for shitbird, don't want it, don't ask for it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Oh...I thought you actually had an argument about the subject...not you trying to justify your life to me.

The site wouldn't allow me to respond in the usual way, the message nesting was too deep. So I chose to only respond to your dumbassery. It seemed to be the most fun. It's no surprise that you're lost. You'll only get from me that which you beg for shitbird, don't want it, don't ask for it.

Good for you...grrrhhhh....

[uwot]

You're the one that said you had "compelling reasons."

Here you go, Spheres; I've highlighted the bits that seem to have escaped you.

I don't think the evidence and arguments offered for the god hypothesis are strong enough to conclude that god exists. Therefore I can honestly say:
I do not believe that god exists.

That's fine and dandy, but how strong is the evidence and arguments that one can argue, for the non-god hypothesis?

Ask someone who has a non-god hypothesis.

However; there are some people who think the evidence and arguments offered against the god hypothesis are strong enough to conclude that god does not exist. Therefore they can honestly say:
I (i.e. 'They')believe that god does not exist.

OK, I just wanted you to share them with me, simple. I would like to know how compelling those things are that convinced you.

Sorry to disappoint you, Spheres, but I don't have any argument nor evidence that god does not exist. It is not that anything has convinced me that there isn't a god that makes me an atheist, it is that the arguments and evidence that theists offer in support of their god hypothesis can be easily demolished.

I would go so far as to say that the problem of evil is enough to rule out the personal, caring and omnipotent god that theists typically espouse;

"Personal?" What do you mean by that?

Well, bear in mind that there are enormous numbers of god hypotheses. Theists typically rule all but one of those hypotheses out, the one they personally like. Atheists have just ruled out one more than theists have.

And also what do you mean by "problem of evil?"

God is supposed to know everything, be able to do anything and care deeply about human suffering. Lots of people suffer, so either god doesn't know about it, or it doesn't care to do anything about it.

but as for 'creator of the universe'? I don't believe that either, but who knows?

Surely we agree, "who knows!" And that's precisely why I've chosen the word agnostic, so as to fit the way logic, at least in my mind, seems to bear out the truth of the topic. It seems to be the most honest, logically/scientifically speaking, no? I speaks of no one currently being able to 'know,' no?

Well yes, 'not being able to to know' is what agnosticism means, and fair enough, you qualify it by adding "currently". If you do that though, it is no longer agnosticism, it is just a lack of the evidence that would allow you to know. I don't think we can't know, so I'm not an agnostic. But I don't see that there is any benefit to believing in a god, so I don't and am an atheist.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Oh...I thought you actually had an argument about the subject...not you trying to justify your life to me.

The site wouldn't allow me to respond in the usual way, the message nesting was too deep. So I chose to only respond to your dumbassery. It seemed to be the most fun. It's no surprise that you're lost. You'll only get from me that which you beg for shitbird, don't want it, don't ask for it.

Good for you...grrrhhhh....

Right back at you!

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're the one that said you had "compelling reasons."

Here you go, Spheres; I've highlighted the bits that seem to have escaped you.
Please be a little sarcastic, will you please? But you meant to say that you've used a larger font size, right?

I don't think the evidence and arguments offered for the god hypothesis are strong enough to conclude that god exists. Therefore I can honestly say:
I do not believe that god exists.

That's fine and dandy, but how strong is the evidence and arguments that one can argue, for the non-god hypothesis?

Ask someone who has a non-god hypothesis.
Fine, fine, fine. But surely you knew what I meant, i.e., your reasoning that no creator's possible.

However; there are some people who think the evidence and arguments offered against the god hypothesis are strong enough to conclude that god does not exist. Therefore they can honestly say:
I (i.e. 'They')believe that god does not exist.

OK, I just wanted you to share them with me, simple. I would like to know how compelling those things are that convinced you.

Sorry to disappoint you, Spheres, but I don't have any argument nor evidence that god does not exist. It is not that anything has convinced me that there isn't a god that makes me an atheist, it is that the arguments and evidence that theists offer in support of their god hypothesis can be easily demolished.
You know full well, that's not what I wanted to hear. Above, I bolded, italicized & underlined what I wanted to hear about. I was hoping for the specific evidence/arguments. Not that I'd expect you to quote them, to paraphrase is sufficient as long as your points are clear.

I would go so far as to say that the problem of evil is enough to rule out the personal, caring and omnipotent god that theists typically espouse;

"Personal?" What do you mean by that?

Well, bear in mind that there are enormous numbers of god hypotheses. Theists typically rule all but one of those hypotheses out, the one they personally like. OK thanks.

Atheists have just ruled out one more than theists have.
OK, but I see that you've allowed their ridiculousness to close your mind from the possibility of an actual creator of this universe.

And also what do you mean by "problem of evil?"

God is supposed to know everything, be able to do anything and care deeply about human suffering. Lots of people suffer, so either god doesn't know about it, or it doesn't care to do anything about it.
Yes that does appear to be a hole in their reason. However would it be considered evil to stamp out evil. I mean those that are purposely evil that expect otherwise for themselves. Suffering because they were evil?

As to suffering, I guess you could bring up a child born not physically formed as the majority, but from whose perspective would their difference be considered suffering, theirs or others that don't have the same difference. And whom creates any particular type of suffering, the one of difference, or the majority.

but as for 'creator of the universe'? I don't believe that either, but who knows?

Surely we agree, "who knows!" And that's precisely why I've chosen the word agnostic, so as to fit the way logic, at least in my mind, seems to bear out the truth of the topic. It seems to be the most honest, logically/scientifically speaking, no? I speaks of no one currently being able to 'know,' no?

Well yes, 'not being able to to know' is what agnosticism means, and fair enough, you qualify it by adding "currently". If you do that though, it is no longer agnosticism, it is just a lack of the evidence that would allow you to know.
I disagree!

agnostic [ag-nos-tik]
noun
1) a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2) a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3) a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality. --www.dictionary.com--
Definitions 1 & 2 might plead your case, but I define my leanings with definition 3.
I hold neither view. I believe that both views are possible. So by definition 3, I'm agnostic! I believe that which ever is in fact the case, shall some day be knowable, though it's probably so far into the future, that I'll never know it. Unless the possible creator shows itself to everyone before I die. Though I don't believe it necessarily, "rolls that way."

I don't think we can't know,
Here, did you mean: "I don't think we can know,..."?

so I'm not an agnostic. But I don't see that there is any benefit to believing in a god, so I don't and am an atheist.

With you, is it only ever about your benefit? How do you benefit from believing in relativity? Or any other bit of science that doesn't directly affect your life on a daily basis?

To me knowledge is knowledge! I benefit by simply knowing of it. Golden coins don't have to rain down upon me. Understanding all the truths of mankind and this universe is all I care about, including that which might be considered trivial by some.

Edited: typos x2