God and time and space

[Speakpigeon]

This is just your interpretation and really just wishful thinking.

I could work out other interpretations. One for example is a scientific one: thinking is a process in brains, and brains and their processes are part of reality therefore reality is a thinking thing. Further, thinking always involves claims about reality therefore reality is the object of its own thinking. According to this, Parmenides didn't mean that we experienced reality as a whole. Rather, reality is experiencing itself but piecemeal, in a disconnected way.

So, you see, it's not that simple and your interpretation is just wishful thinking.
EB

How very creationist of your scientific one. How many strawmen are you going to go through to get us to stop debunking them. No way science goes from observing brains processing information to brains and processes are part of reality therefore ....

Here too your prose is too awkward for me decode in relation to my post you are pretending to reply to. You're asking too much work from me while doing very little yourself. Please rephrase to reach the basic standard of communication in English.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Reality is not a requirement for consciousness. Do we really have to have the tedious discussion of why this is the case?

I am consciousness therefore consciousness is real.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

You lose sight of the relationship of the mind to reality. Consciousness examining itself requires a reality and a mind perceiving it. You arbitrarily wall off a portion of reality and limit the scope of Parmenides to it, and declare victory.

Because you can easily construct a half assed interpretation says more about you than the quote.

It was just an example of a convincing interpretation to show that your interpretation of the Parmenides quote was just that, your interpretation.

I could also give you a different interpretation, somewhat along the line you just suggested, but the result would still be different from your interpretation, thus exposing again the fact that you would need to justify your belief that your interpretation is correct. I already did the exposing so I don't need to proceed further.
EB

... about those glass houses. See my response to your prior post above. Great minds or gems as usual?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry, but whichever way I parse your prose I fail to see how it's a discussion of what I said. On the substance, it's irrelevant to the issue of subjective experience so there's nothing in there I could try to respond to.
EB

Your arguments make sense only if one accepts what is in ones head as a basis for objective analysis. It isn't. I point out how and why it isn't. Bottom line: one cannot achieve common ground by referring to what's within one's subjective head. You respond, quite philosophically, that since FDI didn't agree with EH's presumptions EH sees no reason continue. Why is philosophy so irrelevant? Its irrelevant because it permits things like Speakpigeon's non-responsive response.

Certain arguments can work entirely within a subjective framework. Your insistance on going objective is not necessary and that's why I can successfuly ignore it. I already explained to you, though that was a long time ago, how it works. I don't care if you forgot.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Your arguments make sense only if one accepts what is in ones head as a basis for objective analysis. It isn't. I point out how and why it isn't. Bottom line: one cannot achieve common ground by referring to what's within one's subjective head. You respond, quite philosophically, that since FDI didn't agree with EH's presumptions EH sees no reason continue. Why is philosophy so irrelevant? Its irrelevant because it permits things like Speakpigeon's non-responsive response.

Certain arguments can work entirely within a subjective framework. Your insistance on going objective is not necessary and that's why I can successfuly ignore it. I already explained to you, though that was a long time ago, how it works. I don't care if you forgot.
EB

I didn't forget. I continue to disagree that one can successfully conduct a subjective argument when there is no such thing as subjective common ground. One always needs external references to do other than share intellectual tea and crumpets. I guarantee my subjective tea and crumpets are unlike those of any other's subjective tea and crumpets. Feel free to prove differently. Upon you successful failure to do so please come back and address the issues I raised.

 

[George S]

By the way, about consciousness...

Only possible, but

1) the human brain has the capability of implementing a NAND gate with neurons. A NAND gate takes two inputs and creates an output if both inputs are not present -- it means Not AND.

2) With a NAND gate all other logic gates needed for a computer can be built.

It is possible for the neurology to implement an on-board computer.

____________

It is possible, therefore, that consciousness is what it is like to be a self-aware computer that can manipulate the environment.

Evolution is cleverer than we are. It invented digital replication long since -- DNA. Some processes occur so fast that it seems to be impossible unless quantum computation is being done.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You lose sight of the relationship of the mind to reality. Consciousness examining itself requires a reality and a mind perceiving it. You arbitrarily wall off a portion of reality and limit the scope of Parmenides to it, and declare victory.

Because you can easily construct a half assed interpretation says more about you than the quote.

It was just an example of a convincing interpretation to show that your interpretation of the Parmenides quote was just that, your interpretation.

I could also give you a different interpretation, somewhat along the line you just suggested, but the result would still be different from your interpretation, thus exposing again the fact that you would need to justify your belief that your interpretation is correct. I already did the exposing so I don't need to proceed further.
EB

Another declaration of finitude. How many times can you finish?

The purpose of these ideas is not to assert a dogmatic structure. To contemplate and interpret is part of the game. To shoot from the hip simply to illustrate their abstract nature doesn't accomplish what you appear to think it does.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Certain arguments can work entirely within a subjective framework. Your insistance on going objective is not necessary and that's why I can successfuly ignore it. I already explained to you, though that was a long time ago, how it works. I don't care if you forgot.
EB

I didn't forget. I continue to disagree that one can successfully conduct a subjective argument when there is no such thing as subjective common ground. One always needs external references to do other than share intellectual tea and crumpets. I guarantee my subjective tea and crumpets are unlike those of any other's subjective tea and crumpets. Feel free to prove differently. Upon you successful failure to do so please come back and address the issues I raised.

You're going all dualistic all of a sudden. Interesting.
Or not.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It was just an example of a convincing interpretation to show that your interpretation of the Parmenides quote was just that, your interpretation.

I could also give you a different interpretation, somewhat along the line you just suggested, but the result would still be different from your interpretation, thus exposing again the fact that you would need to justify your belief that your interpretation is correct. I already did the exposing so I don't need to proceed further.
EB

Another declaration of finitude. How many times can you finish?

The purpose of these ideas is not to assert a dogmatic structure. To contemplate and interpret is part of the game. To shoot from the hip simply to illustrate their abstract nature doesn't accomplish what you appear to think it does.

It seems to me I'm doing quite a lot of contemplating and what I do say on this board is nothing if not interpretations of whatever I contemplate.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I didn't forget. I continue to disagree that one can successfully conduct a subjective argument when there is no such thing as subjective common ground. One always needs external references to do other than share intellectual tea and crumpets. I guarantee my subjective tea and crumpets are unlike those of any other's subjective tea and crumpets. Feel free to prove differently. Upon you successful failure to do so please come back and address the issues I raised.

You're going all dualistic all of a sudden. Interesting.
Or not.
EB

Or not! Common ground among partially independent entities must be mushy (uncertain). Mushiness is the enemy of certainty. Ergo, it is reasonable to propose independent verification which is still a step short of validation.

Applying labels without justification is a weapon of the the scoundrel. You're not a scoundrel are you?

Besides the thread is God AND time and space. Objective is part of the discussion between persons living in time and space talking about the ideal (GOD) donchano.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Another declaration of finitude. How many times can you finish?

The purpose of these ideas is not to assert a dogmatic structure. To contemplate and interpret is part of the game. To shoot from the hip simply to illustrate their abstract nature doesn't accomplish what you appear to think it does.

It seems to me I'm doing quite a lot of contemplating and what I do say on this board is nothing if not interpretations of whatever I contemplate.
EB

I think you're contemplating sophistry, not Parmenides.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're going all dualistic all of a sudden. Interesting.
Or not.
EB

Or not! Common ground among partially independent entities must be mushy (uncertain). Mushiness is the enemy of certainty. Ergo, it is reasonable to propose independent verification which is still a step short of validation.

Good! Do that. By all means.

Applying labels without justification is a weapon of the the scoundrel. You're not a scoundrel are you?

I just stated what was obvious except the oblivious that you were going dualistic. Too much for you? I didn't say anything about you as a person. I commented on something objective everybody could see you had just done. Of course it's ironic that you should depict yourself as the advocate of objectivism and dismiss it as soon as it seems unflatering to you.

Besides the thread is God AND time and space. Objective is part of the discussion between persons living in time and space talking about the ideal (GOD) donchano.

Except that the only question in the OP is how it can be for god to exist not in space and time. Not quite what you say... oops! Not at all what you say. You seem to lack the basic skills necessary to be objective such as paying attention to what people say rather than make it up.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It seems to me I'm doing quite a lot of contemplating and what I do say on this board is nothing if not interpretations of whatever I contemplate.
EB

I think you're contemplating sophistry, not Parmenides.

I offerred you an alternative interpretation of the Parmenides quote and what did you do with that?

Anyway, I already knew you could think empty thoughts. Maybe it's therapeutic for us to contemplate the vacuity of your post.
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think you're contemplating sophistry, not Parmenides.

I offerred you an alternative interpretation of the Parmenides quote and what did you do with that?

Anyway, I already knew you could think empty thoughts. Maybe it's therapeutic for us to contemplate the vacuity of your post.
EB

You offer an insincere bit of fluff, label it an interpretation and call me vacuous.

I take it back; I don't think you're contemplating sophistry. A sophist could do better.

 

[fromderinside]

Applying labels without justification is a weapon of the the scoundrel. You're not a scoundrel are you?

I just stated what was obvious except the oblivious that you were going dualistic. I didn't say anything about you as a person. I commented on something objective everybody could see you had just done. Of course it's ironic that you should depict yourself as the advocate of objectivism ...

What I wrote has nothing to do with dualism, objectivism, or about me as a person. I just observed that subjective agreement is impossible. Suggesting a discussion that uses objective criteria for approaching subjective observations has nothing to do with  Dualism, nor  Objectivism (Ayn Rand) (I presume you intended an Any Rand viewpoint here), the philosophies. What I wrote is a bit like justifying psychophysics which is my stock and trade.

Except that the only question in the OP is how it can be for god to exist not in space and time. Not quite what you say... oops! ...

Bingo. You did it again. Puleez explain how one can talk about whether God exists without or within time and space except via the route I prescribe.

For the populi.

OP:

God and time and space

I've heard it argued by apologists on youtube, ect that God exists outside of time and space. How can that be? If he has substance then he has space and is inside a space and if he thinks or does anything he is acting within time.​

 

[Speakpigeon]

Applying labels without justification is a weapon of the the scoundrel. You're not a scoundrel are you?

I just stated what was obvious except the oblivious that you were going dualistic. I didn't say anything about you as a person. I commented on something objective everybody could see you had just done. Of course it's ironic that you should depict yourself as the advocate of objectivism ...

What I wrote has nothing to do with dualism, objectivism, or about me as a person. I just observed that subjective agreement is impossible.

Your claim that subjective agreement is impossible is dualistic in nature.

Suggesting a discussion that uses objective criteria for approaching subjective observations has nothing to do with  Dualism

Of course not but you did something else. You also claimed that subjective agreement is impossible. That's dualistic.

I presume you intended an Any Rand viewpoint here

No. I would have signalled it.

Besides the thread is God AND time and space. Objective is part of the discussion between persons living in time and space talking about the ideal (GOD) donchano.

Except that the only question in the OP is how it can be for god to exist not in space and time. Not quite what you say... oops! ...

Bingo. You did it again. Puleez explain how one can talk about whether God exists without or within time and space except via the route I prescribe.

First, my point was that the OP is about whether god could exist outside space and time, which is not how you presented it above in the quote I criticised.

The crux of the matter is that you are claiming that a conversation requires an objective world to be had. Whether this is actually the case I don't know but I don't see any apparent impossibility once I recognise that I don't even know that there is any reality outside my subjective experience.

I suspect that you are assuming such a reality, and you are assuming it follows some sort of laws, and you are assuming these laws apply to everything real and from that you think you can deduce that no effective conversation could be had without going through some sort of objective process. But your assumptions are just that and your conclusion is not valid. Your conclusion might be in fact right but even so your assumptions would still be assumptions and your deduction would still not be valid and you would still not know you'd be right.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Applying labels without justification is a weapon of the the scoundrel. You're not a scoundrel are you?

I just stated what was obvious except the oblivious that you were going dualistic. I didn't say anything about you as a person. I commented on something objective everybody could see you had just done. Of course it's ironic that you should depict yourself as the advocate of objectivism ...

What I wrote has nothing to do with dualism, objectivism, or about me as a person. I just observed that subjective agreement is impossible.

Your claim that subjective agreement is impossible is dualistic in nature.

Suggesting a discussion that uses objective criteria for approaching subjective observations has nothing to do with  Dualism

Of course not but you did something else. You also claimed that subjective agreement is impossible. That's dualistic.

I presume you intended an Any Rand viewpoint here

No. I would have signalled it.

Besides the thread is God AND time and space. Objective is part of the discussion between persons living in time and space talking about the ideal (GOD) donchano.

Except that the only question in the OP is how it can be for god to exist not in space and time. Not quite what you say... oops! ...

Bingo. You did it again. Puleez explain how one can talk about whether God exists without or within time and space except via the route I prescribe.

First, my point was that the OP is about whether god could exist outside space and time, which is not how you presented it above in the quote I criticised.

The crux of the matter is that you are claiming that a conversation requires an objective world to be had. Whether this is actually the case I don't know but I don't see any apparent impossibility once I recognise that I don't even know that there is any reality outside my subjective experience.

I suspect that you are assuming such a reality, and you are assuming it follows some sort of laws, and you are assuming these laws apply to everything real and from that you think you can deduce that no effective conversation could be had without going through some sort of objective process. But your assumptions are just that and your conclusion is not valid. Your conclusion might be in fact right but even so your assumptions would still be assumptions and your deduction would still not be valid and you would still not know you'd be right.
EB

Let me put my statement about whether subjective agreement is impossible. Of course it is not impossible. It is impractical. Humans have shown no facility for communicating mind to mind. Had that taken place we'd already have a subjective process in place for adding to our knowledge in a systematic and successful way. I see no evidence this has taken place.

So I recommended that we use a method through which we are pretty successful in accumulating understanding. You seems to take that as evidence I was talking dualism which is exactly the problem I anticipated we'd have if I made such a suggestion. Since we've been arguing around in circles given our lack of mind meld I figure is is best to exhaust objective methods in which humans seem to be pretty facile before we decide to wait until/if we evolve meld capacity. Idle hands are the devils workshop the saying goes.

Now your dualism dismiss is dismissed. Care to find another way to dodge using objective means to examine whither God exists outside time and space includes objective approaches to whether time and space is all mankind can examine (dark matter and energy come to mind as do arguments about whether TOE needs a ten or eleven dimensional formulation). Clearly deciding whether man can examine more than time and space must come before man can use objective methods to examine the existence of God in what the OP used as code words for the real world (time and space) as we objectively appreciate it.

Your dualism red herring can be put aside until we actually mind meld. I suggest we can consider the extent to which time and space describe the objective world and whether God can exist in it.

Go.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Care to find another way to dodge using objective means to examine whither God exists outside time and space includes objective approaches to whether time and space is all mankind can examine (dark matter and energy come to mind as do arguments about whether TOE needs a ten or eleven dimensional formulation). Clearly deciding whether man can examine more than time and space must come before man can use objective methods to examine the existence of God in what the OP used as code words for the real world (time and space) as we objectively appreciate it.

Your dualism red herring can be put aside until we actually mind meld. I suggest we can consider the extent to which time and space describe the objective world and whether God can exist in it.

Go.

I dunno. You seem to know what you're talking about so you start first, I'll try to follow.
EB

 

[Underseer]

Really? We're arguing about substance dualism?

 

[fromderinside]

Underseer:* Nope. Just jumping to labels.

Speakpigeon:* Do you think it is safe to claim that the OP's time and space actually refers to more than just time and space? If so just how objective must such as dark matter and dark energy be before one can pose more than ancient subjective attributions in discussion? Where does one call foul? Why not include a dimension that makes all time-space apparent to the observer for instance?

*^{_{giving members who post their due}}