Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  kid-A

  "When I believe something, it has been proven to me. I have been exposed to sufficient evidence to compel belief."

  This is indeed a frightening criteria for constructing one's reality. By your standards, a schizophrenic in the throes of paranoid psychosis who "believes" that voices (that he thinks and believes he "hears") that compel him to murder his children, is perfectly justified in his "proof" of the reality of these voices. Such an individual may indeed be exposed to what you call "sufficient" evidence (all of which exists solely in his own mind) to compel his belief in said reality. This is just nonsense. Generated feelings and emotions within the brain are the biochemical effects of neurotransmitters, nothing more, nothing less. They are NOT proof of anything nor are the evidence of anything. They are neurophysiological sequelae in response to sensory inputs. You are free to ASCRIBE these generated feelings to some god-like entity, but such an action constitutes neither evidence nor proof of anything outside of one's own neuronal constructs.

  The notion that ALL perceptions are constricted by subjectivity and hence prone to error does not hold in the scientific realm. Why? Precisely because I need to verify my claims with independent, outside reviewers before presenting data. My data needs to be physically demonstrated, and most importantly, replicated, before being taken seriously. What this process involves is a collective collaboration of subjective individuals arriving at a demonstrable set of results describing the objective, physical world beyond us. And no, recording electrodes, scanners, electrophysiological recording equipment does not lie, nor distort objective reality. It simply RECORDS, without emotion, without perceptual filters, without bias. This is the equipment of the scientist, rather than the error-prone, distorting influences of human perceptual faculties.

  What happens when scientists achieve census about the "objective" world and how it works? Diseases get treatments or cures. Technology is born. Progress is made. What happens when religionists achieve census about the "subjective" realm of the supernatural? Religions and cults are born. Jihads and holy crusades are created. Intellectual and scientific progress is stultified and repressed.

  Long story short, belief is NOT proof. Maybe there is a god lurking about between the synapses in your neuronal networks. However, that does not even remotely imply that such a being exists beyond the confines of the unique neurotransmission parameters beyond your cortex.

  Finally, I "believe" that YOU believe there is evidence inside your brain for some god creature. I do not believe you have "proof" beyond your own criteria for proof (which, of course, is also the result of neuronally constructed templates), which, as already stated, has no relationship to objective reality in and of itself.
• 

  Ri

  What happens when scientists achieve census about the "objective" world and how it works? Diseases get treatments or cures. Technology is born. Progress is made. What happens when religionists achieve census about the "subjective" realm of the supernatural? Religions and cults are born. Jihads and holy crusades are created. Intellectual and scientific progress is stultified and repressed.

  What has God to do with religion and cults? Like someone has said: religion and cults are man-made.

  God has given us the intellict to discover treatments and cures for diseases and progress in technology....Did you think all of human inventions came out of nowhere? Some of us have better than average intelligence and that is a gift you should be grateful for.

  However, not all inventions and discoveries by scientists have fallen into the hands the best of scientists...some will use technology for killing and suffering of mankind.
• 

  acsot

  Kid-A:
  
  

  Generated feelings and emotions within the brain are the biochemical effects of neurotransmitters, nothing more, nothing less. They are NOT proof of anything nor are the evidence of anything. They are neurophysiological sequelae in response to sensory inputs. You are free to ASCRIBE these generated feelings to some god-like entity, but such an action constitutes neither evidence nor proof of anything outside of one's own neuronal constructs.

  And neuroscientists are doing work on recreating the "god effect." You've got to read this article, it's long, but wait until you get to page 4 and see the hypothesis the writer puts forth concerning Mormons and JWs.
  
  
  http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=
• 

  AuldSoul

  kid-a: ...is perfectly justified in his "proof" of the reality of these voices.

  Where does the subjective "justification" come into it at all? He has had it proven to him. Whether or not he has external proof.

  kid-a: You are free to ASCRIBE these generated feelings to some god-like entity, but such an action constitutes neither evidence nor proof of anything outside of one's own neuronal constructs.

  The same is true of every single thing a human encounters or interacts with. The individual has to interpret all input through this same "suspect" set of neuronal constructs. Nothing can escape that process. Which is why humans are incapable of objectivity, in any real sense.

  All reality is interpretted through neuronal constructs. Why is some reality more real than other reality? Because it can be tested in the "real" world? What world is not subject to the filter of neuronal constructs, exactly?

  I am not arguing that nothing can be known. I am arguing that everything can be, as long as it is remembered that all knowledge and all reality is subjective, at some level at least.

  kid-a: What happens when scientists achieve census about the "objective" world and how it works? Diseases get treatments or cures. Technology is born. Progress is made.

  This is hardly a fair depiction of all the effects of consensus regarding the material universe (a portion of reality).

  kid-a: What happens when religionists achieve census about the "subjective" realm of the supernatural? Religions and cults are born. Jihads and holy crusades are created. Intellectual and scientific progress is stultified and repressed.

  This is hardly a fair depiction of all the effects of consensus regarding reality (which encompasses all reality).

  One would be led by the latter to believe that no scientists are theists or religious. That is far from true, and religious scientists do not exhibit stultified or repressed attitudes toward intellectual or scientific progress.

  One would be led by your former statements to believe that no harmful and deliterious effects come from consensus about the objective world and how it works. Yet, I can bring up articles from JAMA that included adverts for cigarettes at a time when scientific consensus said cigarette smoking was not harmful and specifically aided humans. DDT and Thalidamide ring any bells? Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Three-mile-island? Chernobyl? Combustion engines? High-voltage power lines? Space junk on slow centripetal orbits? Salt-water aquifer intrusion? Contaminant plumes in aquifer systems? Estradiol-B and other mutogenics is surface fresh water sources from degrading soft plastics and other industrial products? Sheesh, even airplanes that carry people quickly over great distances also carry the potential of disastrous consequences as a result of communicable airborne diseases.

  I am not arguing that science is bad or makes no progress. But religion has never demonstrated a capacity to exterminate our species, can the same fairly be said of science? Not in my opinion. I think the capacity to destroy our species could not have come about without the aid of science. What is you opinion on that point? Was that an evolutionary move that was good for our species, or bad for our species, in the long term, to bring within its reach the capacity to (fairly quickly) exterminate our species?

  I think perhaps a fair evaluation of each would show that your contrasting presentation is quite far from a mark even approaching objectivity. But, that is only my subjective opinion.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Scientia imperii decus et tutamen
• 

  TopHat

  "We want to enhance what the brain does to help heal the body," Persinger explains. "Among more sensitive individuals, tests show that their skin will turn red if they believe a hot nickel has been placed on their hand. That's a powerful psychosomatic effect of the brain on the body. Suppose we could make it more precise?"

  A paragragh from "This is your brain on God"

  I offen wonder if the internet has the same effect on our brains and body when we meet someone we have never seen nor hear their voice, that has a profound impression on us.
• 

  LittleToe

  I had to drop back in just to throw this into the pot, before departing once more into the night:

  Kid-A:

  "When I believe something, it has been proven to me. I have been exposed to sufficient evidence to compel belief."

  This is indeed a frightening criteria for constructing one's reality.

  No it isn't. It's the way that the majority of humankind work, yourself included. When you've been exposed to sufficient evidence to compel belief you believe that it has been proven to you. You might evetually change your opinion again, but for the moment you will defend it to the hilt. Such is the power of our subjective experience.

  Since you want to use extreme examples, please allow me to offer you one: Supposing a UFO landed and a pile of little green men spilled out and clearly proved (with evidence and scientifically replicable experiments) that they had been watching this little planet for millions of years and making the appropriate changes to allow the human race to evolve. You might not call them "God", but you would most certainly revise your opinions on ID. That is of course unless you were a complete luddite and obstinate that your primative opinion was correct.

  No?
• 

  Abaddon

  stilla

  Okay, the last one is "Dominion over knowledge is an honour and a protection", although it's a bit rough as it's actually a play on words; it's the motto of the Imperial College of Science. The one before that is 'Enter in order to profit'.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  All reality is interpretted through neuronal constructs. Why is some reality more real than other reality? Because it can be tested in the "real" world? What world is not subject to the filter of neuronal constructs, exactly?

  I am not arguing that nothing can be known. I am arguing that everything can be, as long as it is remembered that all knowledge and all reality is subjective, at some level at least.

  I fully see your point in how all of us mentally exist in a constructed "reality" thats prone to varying degrees of subjectivity. Models of reality, be it dreams, hallucinations, or contructs generated from the stimuli of our sensory inputs, have similar "concreteness" at the level of neurochemicals and action potentials. They are all equally real at that level. But then I see this as meaning we'll never be sure of knowing something completely and absolutely. We have to be able to identify the providence of whats generating those cascades, to discriminate the external from the internal, the blips from the constants.

  Ergo, the importance of being able to reproduce a phenomenon, preferably with tools and methods acting as extensions to our own senses, in order to establish some confidence in its being substantial and of its providence. Our enhanced ability to influence, control and manipulate external reality means that we will be better off to favour some models over others. The dialectic we have in the scientific method isn't 100% accurate but I think that its continually refining our models.

  I can see your point if you're arguing the following: That if we're never mentally open to exploring for the spiritual or any interaction with the divinity then we're likely going to misperceive it. Our current paradigm can work fairly well at one level, but still be limited so that it may not on another (like classical newtonian mechanics vs quantum mechanics). Maybe personal internal experiences are the only way to interact with a postulated spiritual/divine "reality". I'd say that leaves us with no solid evidence (hence the need for faith).
• 

  AuldSoul

  Midget-Sasquatch: Our current paradigm can work fairly well at one level, but still be limited so that it may not on another (like classical newtonian mechanics vs quantum mechanics). Maybe personal internal experiences are the only way to interact with a postulated spiritual/divine "reality". I'd say that leaves us with no solid evidence (hence the need for faith).

  Your entire analysis of my position was 100% spot on. To flesh out a bit of this last part:

  We have no solid evidence for "up", "down", "north", "south", "east", "west, "near", "far", "time", "magnetic field", "gravity", "intelligence" or quite a lot of other realities we accept and depend upon every day. In fact, it can quickly be demonstrated that these are only subjectively relative constructs. But they are no less helpful, for that. At the same time, our confidence in these constructs can be limiting.

  For instance, the concept of distance is reinforced from a very young age. But the mechanism through which we interact with the real universe (our organism) gives us no easy means of distinguishing whether distance exists. Yet, we can find evidence that at some level of real existence distance becomes meaningless, forcing us to question whether distance is nothing more than an accepted neuronal construct that is believed true due to our limitations of perception and the limitations of our interface (our organism).

  Does time exist, or is it a convenience we create to mark the gaps between events? If it does not exist, how can we go faster or slower? But, outside our own perceptions, time does not exist so far as we can tell. Time is a subjective reality, not an objective reality. Therefore, every concept employing time is also suspect as to whether it actually exists. A "light year", for instance, becomes suspect of not actually existing, as a dramatic consequence of suspecting time of non-existence.

  Without that concept of time, how close is our nearest star? Our nearest neighboring star system? What does "near" mean, exactly, without the existence of time?

  How many experiements have proved things true or false by the employment of marking gaps between events? Are these still proved, if time does not exist, or if time is simply a subjectively relative construct that depends on the perception of a biological interface?

  I am not suggesting that we scrap all accepted knowledge and start from scratch. I am suggesting that we scrap our egoistic notion that humans are capable of objectivity and tear down an unnatural perceptual barrier to discovery that has been many years in the making.