Comments by Brian English

101. Without God

Comment #252869 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 6:11 pm

I sure as shit hope I'm not the same gormless git I was 20 years ago. :D

102. Without God

Comment #252860 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Or would I just be Brian.

Just? Just? You'd be THE Brian. Just ask me. As far as I'm concerned I'm THE Brian. :D

103. Without God

Comment #252859 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Or have I changed in the course of the years I have lived to become another?

What was that other philosophical thought experiment? Something about a boy who stole apples, which he later remembered when as a young soldier who stormed the trenches, but could not remember when as a aged general.....Is the general who has changed every cell in his body and doesn't remember stealing those apples the same person as the young boy?

104. Without God

Comment #252852 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm

If I can articulate it in such a way that you can apply syllogism to it it would be a great breakthrough for me already.

How very Aristotelean of you Bonzai. :)
I'm not convinced that logic applies to everything in the universe, it seems an article of faith. I think we can assume logical thought matches very well with things and environments similar to our original evolutionary environment. If it didn't our idea of logic might get us eaten by the big bad lion. When things get super small (quantum) or super large or fast (relativity) then there is no a priori justification for saying we can logically grasp it as it really is. This is not to say we can't or that we shouldn't investigate such realms. I think our understanding of self and consciousness might also be beyond our logical understanding, or it might not. How do you step outside the system to observe it? Would you understand it if you could? Oh well, that's plenty of irrational navel gazing on my part. :)

105. Without God

Comment #252844 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 4:42 pm

Have a good one Bonzai. Come back when you're drunk. I think the last time we had a discussion I was drunk and we were arguing the merits of philosophy and how it is of no use to science and maths. I think you one that argument convincingly but I had a great time. :)

106. Without God

Comment #252842 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 4:40 pm

We express our propositions through arguments (not quarrels) is all I meant. Sorry. :)

here is no constant "I" apart from the substrate that bears "it".

Given this, then without the substrate (memories, neurological bits and the environmental stuff like culture, genes, etc) you cease to exist.

But any of such system capable of self consciousness may become you just as this baby that your mother gave birth to X years ago and its conscious experience becomes you instead of me.

I think your previous sentence argues against this.

107. Without God

Comment #252835 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 4:33 pm

don't agree with 2. It wouldn't be "Bonzai", but somehow it may be "I" in that this subjective "I-ness" experienced by this person or thing (some substrate for self consciousness, can be a robot) is "me"? Sorry, I really can't articulate it. :)

OK, I'm very loose with my words as you know. I'm not sure I could be less loose either. But I'll try..

Your 'I' (I ness) is not my 'I'. Agreed? If so:
Let's denote your 'I' as IBonzai and mine ISilly.
Thus, IBonzai is not equal to ISilly (as far as we can tell).
You seem to argue that you can separate the IBonzai from Bonzai and have a nebulous 'I'. But without the Bonzai (the past and environmental) it would be some experiential being but not Bonzai. I think. So Implanting this free floating 'I' in another substrate (brain) and firing it up wouldn't be you would it?

108. Without God

Comment #252832 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 4:29 pm

I think this has something to with "qualia" based on what I read from Steve's posts but I can't be sure. I am not versed in the subject.

Careful Bonzai. You might find a use for philosophy if you keep thinking this kind of stuff....very troubling indeed. ;)

109. Without God

Comment #252826 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 4:23 pm

The "objects" can be totally different and so is the consciousness.

OK, the analogy was weak. Here's what I thought you meant.

1. Bonzai's brain is the substrate, Bonzai's consciousness is the subjective experience, Bonzai is the self.

2. Another 'brain' is the substrate, another consciousness is the subjective experience, Is Bonzai the self?

Like the ship, change all the parts, sail it in different locales, is it still the same ship? Not the physical ship, that has obviously changed, but the idea of someone who's been through all the changes and modifications and routes sailed. Is it the same ship to them?

110. Without God

Comment #252822 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Yes. And there is no "you" apart from the actual physical wiring, yet there is this "I" experience.

Indeed. What one must do in this situation is not claim anything to fill the void, but accept that we don't know right now. No shame in admitting ignorance. I honestly don't know how consciousness emerges. I honestly don't know why your consciousness feels like you and not me. But then again how do I know that it doesn't feel like me? I don't. I think I might try solipsism right now. :D

111. Without God

Comment #252820 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Bonzai, it does seem analogous to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_paradox

The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's paradox, is a paradox that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

112. Without God

Comment #252814 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 4:13 pm

I don't think Hume even understood the question.

I don't think he did. One his great qualities was that he never claimed more than he though he could demonstrate (at least he seemed never to do so). I wish religious people would do the same. A vain wish I know. :)

One hint that might help you is that something must be experiencing that bundle of things, that something is you. It is unique in the sense that you're the only organism experiencing them at that moment, with that history of (forgotten?) previous experiences and environmental (genes are an environment for any particular gene as well as the external world) inputs.....

113. Without God

Comment #252807 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 4:03 pm

So, say 100 years after you die, may "you" again experience consciousness in another life form? Notice I am not talking about a migrating soul or anything like that. "You" are the wiring itself. But is it possible for this wiring to be "you" again.

I am sorry, I can't articulate it. But I assure you that I am not high or drunk.

The matrix has been rebooted. Bonzai 2.0 is operational. It would be difficult, though not impossible to organize the same 'wiring' and 'programming' arrangement to recreate you in another substrate capable of consciousness and still say it's you. Sort of like that philosophical conundrum the ancient greek guy did in replacing bits of a ship.

I actually like Hume's view of the self. He said something like no matter how examined himself, he never found the I, only a bundle of thoughts and emotions. Or something like that.

114. Without God

Comment #252805 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 4:00 pm

No need to worry about death - it's the dying I'm worried about.

Amen to that Goldy. Last word!

115. Without God

Comment #252794 by Brian English on September 23, 2008 at 3:44 pm

I'm fucking terrified of death.

Why? I don't get it. As far as we can tell the universe is over 13 billion years old. I didn't exist for all but the last 36 and it didn't matter. When I no longer exist it won't matter. I dare say that it only matters to me, and a few others right now that I exist. Hardly anything to get worked up about. Enjoy the ride and remember that Earth is a dangerous place. Nobody gets out alive! :)

I can understand fear of pain, or painful, lingering before death. That would just suck.

116. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252320 by Brian English on September 22, 2008 at 9:55 pm

Mitchell, I'm not sure about the part of the brain, to me it is immature thinking. Adolescents and teenagers think in black or white. Laws are to be obeyed and there are no ifs (you're with me or against me). As people mature they can see that laws or rules are not the be all and end all. Seems to me the relgiobots got the laws and have not transcended that stage of thinking in black and white....

117. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252318 by Brian English on September 22, 2008 at 9:49 pm

I see the mooning of NZ and vicious having of the last word I achieved has made you more timid. Tootles!

118. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252316 by Brian English on September 22, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Goldy, time to go home? Last word having you shall not perform me thinks! (flashes moon in general direction of NZ)

119. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252306 by Brian English on September 22, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Brain, are you trying to attack me with sarcasm? Bad luck on being the penultimate word-haver. :)

120. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252303 by Brian English on September 22, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Don't defend yourself Goldy. Your reasoned arguments will not sway my dogmatically maniacal desire to have the last word at your expense and take the piss whilst doing the same!

121. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252293 by Brian English on September 22, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Styrer to Goldy:

I suspect that the 'warm fuzzies' are not the sole province of the full-blown theists. They also manifest themselves horribly and destructively in the liberals such as you..., who are as precisely descriptive of wishful-thinking as any faithoholic nutjob could hope to be.
...
I am staggered by your apparently willful obliviousness.

Good snark. I like it. Take that Goldy you pansy!

122. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252278 by Brian English on September 22, 2008 at 6:39 pm

There's a lot of internecine fighting going on these days. I also notice that Goldy regularly posts. Thus:

Goldy (godly* is his real purpose) is responsible for dividing the atheists and ensuing arguments.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc...

*a typo or clever dissimulation?

123. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252204 by Brian English on September 22, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Goldy, I think the system selects for cronyism and mediocrity. In a way that's good. A young firebrand can't get elected and revolutionize (read fuck royally) a country. Sadly, the cronies rule the mediocre roost.....

124. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252198 by Brian English on September 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Sneaky little bugger you are Goldy. Trying to get the last word in again!

125. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251672 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 9:41 pm

That'll teach you to be blessed with prodigious fecundity! The last words are mine!

126. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251669 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 9:37 pm

in case anyone reads Brian's reply and wonders what is going on...

Your edit will not convince anyone that the mishmash of words I'm now typing has any merit!

127. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251667 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Your word were last! Victory is mine!

128. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251664 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Not a god! Bah! You wouldn't know a god if it blessed you with prodigious fecundity! I have the last word!

129. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251662 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 9:29 pm

And, as I like the last word

Last word! Bah! I have the last word.

130. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251659 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Australian Dreamtime has no "God" as I can recall in my readings.

No God! Bah! Quetzocoatl's relations lived here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagyl

131. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251657 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Giant's Causeway! Bah! Organ pipes:
http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1park_display.cfm?park=167

132. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251654 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Crystals?

Crystals! Bah! Cubic Zirconia!

133. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251642 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 8:13 pm

He has always existed.

You will of course offer evidence and arguments to back up this assertion.

the analogy is very sound and basically all I need even though I could write all day (and I could) and you may not agree which is your perogative.

No, an argument is sound if it is valid and it's premises are true. An analogy is not the same thing, it can be weak or strong. Your analogy is very weak as it relies on our observation of objects that we know to be designed by humans, being analogous to the universe of which we have no evidence of design, and no evidence of it being designed by a human or human like entity. For the analogy to be strong we would need some direct or indirect evidence of the human(like) designer. You can't claim design and say that proves a designer (that's begging the question) because you need to show design first, which by your analogy requires you to show that you've seen the designs or designer of the universe.

I'll put it as simply as possible so you don't get confused.

We see a person design a house, thus we know it's designed.
We see ..... design the universe, thus we know it's designed.

Couldn't be more simpler. Please show that you've seen ..... design the universe and we'll accept design. And please be sincere. :)

There has to be inteligence where there is order.

Please provide some arguments or evidence to support this assertion.

134. Scientists Behind 'Doomsday Seed Vault' Ready World's Crops For Climate Change

Comment #251040 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 2:55 am

higher temperatures should increase the ocean evaporation and generate more rain.

Let's say your simplistic idea that ignores equilibrium is correct, how will more rain help agriculture? The rain needs to fall where you have arable land. Unless you can make that rain fall where you want it, it's lost water. That's why it's a problem, messing with climates shifts where rain falls. You can't grow crops in the ocean (where most rain falls) and climate change may create deserts by shifting ocean currents and all that. But you go on with the unscientific assertion that that extra rain will fall on your garden and crops. Talk about a faith based approach.

135. The real difference between liberals and conservatives

Comment #251032 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 2:40 am

They're sooooo 19th century, Brian.

Really? I'm still stuck in the 18th century. That's when the Enlightenment was a rockin' :)

136. The real difference between liberals and conservatives

Comment #251024 by Brian English on September 21, 2008 at 2:25 am

Libertarians are a crack up.

137. The real difference between liberals and conservatives

Comment #250960 by Brian English on September 20, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Go get him Laurie. How's your Sunday going?

138. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #250918 by Brian English on September 20, 2008 at 8:07 pm

How about showing that God exists first?

139. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #250911 by Brian English on September 20, 2008 at 7:58 pm

common sense 2zz:

proof there is a watchmaker--a watch

No, that is putting the cart before the horse. You know that a watch is designed and manufactured because you have seen watchmakers, in fact, you probably see a company's logo on the watch. You know a house is designed and manufactured because you've seen people designing and manufacturing houses. You don't know that the universe was designed, you need to show this.

For your analogy to work, you have to show that you've seen a universe being designed and have seen that designer. Otherwise, you are just begging the question (using what you wish to prove as a premise in that proof). Please show us your designer and designs of the universe and we will agree with you that it is designed.

140. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #250895 by Brian English on September 20, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Just have faith. Evidence is not all it's purported to be.

So true, this is how we know that Thor will return with mjolnir to slay those who do not have faith in Asgard.

141. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250670 by Brian English on September 20, 2008 at 5:41 am

That is what I was trying to say :)

Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till it's gone?

I'm sure it's just god's way of punishing us all for those moments of self-abuse.

Personally I think it's quite a good example of how fucked up the argument to design is. Why would any idiot run the hose from the tank to the tap with the hose going through a dodgy passage that swells with time?

142. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250663 by Brian English on September 20, 2008 at 5:35 am

Unless one is a pregnant woman if my received wisdom is correct. :)

Anyway, don't old fellows with prostate problems cherish the freedom to urinate more than most? Or am I just being ageist?

143. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250656 by Brian English on September 20, 2008 at 5:26 am

Just so you're aware: you are waging probably your next 20 seconds of your life and the freedom to urinate in those given seconds if you're foolish enough to believe that I'm right.
Typical dogmatic extremist I am. :)

Hi Steve!

144. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #250647 by Brian English on September 20, 2008 at 4:12 am

Fides sin ratione:

You still haven't squared the circle regarding the trinity. Now, how can 3 persons form the 1 godhead yet be distinct persons?

God = father = son = spirit
but
father != son != spirit
thus we have a contradiction.

Show us the ratio that you claim and explain that one. :)

145. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #250570 by Brian English on September 19, 2008 at 11:46 pm

Here's a sensible paranormal belief:
I believe the paranormal is a bald assertion based on ignorance and incredulity of those who propose it.

146. Creationist Britain (would you Adam and Eve it?)

Comment #250363 by Brian English on September 19, 2008 at 2:13 pm

What's that ya say ya scurvy sea monkey?

147. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250043 by Brian English on September 18, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Jackboots? Steriods? You're just making this up aren't ya Laurie?

148. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #250031 by Brian English on September 18, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Did someone call for a Fascist?

149. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249913 by Brian English on September 18, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Hi Russell. I still can't believe you didn't let me submit a rant for your cool sounding book! Oh wait, I get it. :)

I've been banned from buying books for a while, so don't publish it until August next year.

150. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249276 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Well, don't know about the steriods but the humour reaped from those attempts at frivolity was certainly lower than expected.

Back to the Joke cave Batman, there's work to be done!