God Exists As A Shaming Father

hi everyone. Before I begin this explanation of how God must necessarily exist, you must first be made aware of your subconscious motivations for coming to this thread to begin with, else what I am about to say will feel like a cheap trick to those who actually have genuine curiosity. To the rest of us, it will appear to be an opportunity to lecture.

In both cases, the only significant effect is wether or not there is actually something called "mental activity" going on inside of your head at all. How would you prove to someone that you have "taste" when everyone's tastes are different? What then becomes of the definition of "taste" when it means so many things to so many people? If I don't sound like I'm babbling yet, I would say we have just described God rather accurately. Now you are sure I am babbling. But what I actually just did was switch the word God and taste and it made sense to you.

It's because they are the same "type" of belief. The most obvious similarity is that both God and taste DO exist, as electrical impulses interpreted by your brain. Aka your imagination, which is nothing to be ashamed of. Unless you are helplessly propelled by subconscious motivations. Then you are probably very familiar with shame and live with it like an addiction.

This thread is for you.

Do not operate in "auto mode". Do not become complacent. Do not just go through the motions. Fight the urge to do things automatically and do not rush.

You have the opportunity to do something no one has ever done before.

You can break free from your mental bonds.

You can create the heavens.

Tame yourself. Don't shame yourself.

 

You do sound like you are babbling. We can observe the food being placed directly on the mouth and it's interaction with the tongue, which contains taste receptors and subsequently measure corresponding brain activity. There is the dilemma of 'qualia' and individual reported taste but The God situation does not even have the external, observable aspect. Pretty much every thought will have brain activity, I don't think we would or should draw a comparison between say eating a salad and asking someone about their favorite video game and say these are the same "type" of experience simply because they elicit brain activity and likely will demonstrate subjectivity in response.


If you maintain the analogy, you may as well just drop the brain activity part and argue from a Philosophical Idealist perspective.

 

God, you can't tell me what to do. You're not my real dad!

sorry, that's the first thing that popped into my head when I read the thread title. Please resume your srs discussion.

 

No, it actually didn't.

Taste is something we know exists, and even the claim that everybody's tastes are totally different is unsubstantiated; for all you know, aside from the well known intolerances of certain foods by certain subset of humans, everybody tastes things exactly the same. We have mountains; MOUNTAINS of scientific, fact based knowledge regarding taste and how taste works.

We have exactly bupkis equivalent knowledge for the proposed entity "god".

If you're going to compare god to a sense, i would compare it with telekenesis, in that neither seem to exist.

 

this perception is one as humans we've invented. and there's no basis for it.

 

Then why do people react in such drastically different ways to the same tastes. Some might call a taste good while another calls it bad, and you might just chalk it up to being a matter of opinion. Everybody's entitled to their opinion on some level, as though their opinion was absolutely right on some level. So if two people are eating the same food and one thinks it's terrific and the other thinks it's horrible, they're both right, in some way? The turkey has exactly the same taste that is simultaneously disgusting and delicious somehow?

We really don't have mountains of information on anything, is what I am saying, because we have no mountain of information whatsoever on human psychology. We can only expect "normal" behavior to an extent, and then what's going on here is anybody's guess. No matter how accurately you describe food molecules touching tastebuds, you will still not have solved the mystery of how food tastes, because you will not have solved the mystery of the experiencer. Everything revolves around this.

How would God necessarily seem to exist that you know God necessarily doesn't seem to exist? You can't just determine for everyone else what seems to exist.

 

The experience of food uses several different sensory modalities. What we experience as "flavor" (sometimes called 'taste' as well but I'll use flavor not to confuse the point) also draws upon other senses, such as smell and sight.

Smell is surprisingly important in the flavor of food, if it's not something you normally consider. I think most of us can relate that sometimes the food we normally enjoy, may seem a bit bland or different when we have a cold or stuffed up nose. I cannot find the video on youtube but there was a study on tv where a few taste test experts were to be put to the test and guess particular foods upon having a sensory mode blocked. The first test was blindfolded and when blindfolded, the experts were still quite accurate as to guessing the correct food. However for the 2nd test, they were given nose plugs and had a very difficult time guessing the foods accurately, there were maybe only a couple correct guesses amongst all of expert testers and the various foods tested.

As far as sight goes, here's a video about McDonald food makeup stylists..

http://youtu.be/oSd0keSj2W8

 

Is there a point to this, Mr. Bedlam? I don't see how it can particularly be of consequence that other senses are involved in the experience of taste, when the question is "Are the tastes identical?" Or do the tastes become something more than they seem to be because they have been absorbed into the subjective world of the human psyche? That is, how can you objectively differentiate between a taste and the human form in which it is consumed? And isn't a taste, truly, many different, separate, subjective things?

It seems you want to unite two worlds into one world where there is just one objective reality that we will all eventually succumb to. I promise you this world does not exist.

 

Make it easier on everybody and just say God=the 5 senses.
We need them all to identify anything. Yes we can adjust to the loss like Eyesight with Audio enhances, not like the comic character Daredevil (Blind but with super hearing ) but enhanced non the less.

It is all perception. You can't say everything taste the same. It depends on how it is prepared, i.e a steak, well done taste alot different then medium rare and a smoker finds most thing bland and over compensate on the salt and sugar. Weed smoker, loves everything food lol

I am inclined to say God = natural balance. Just enough Gravity to hold the universe together but not enough to crush it into a dense atom or allow it to expand at an unimaginable rate. daylight is on average 12 - 14hrs a day ( not taking into account daylight savings,man made or the n pole with 6 months of darkness)
Take humans. everything that happens to us from a common cold to cancer to stress all stems from an imbalance of something

And your heading is misleading. Maybe "God exists as a tasty burger" might have been better + a little added humor

 

The sense to make sense of the senses

 

That to say we experience subjective 'qualia' which encorporates our whole experience of eating something is essentially different in a sense, or senses, and accounts for much of the experience of 'taste' in colloquial terms or 'flavor'. But this does not call into question that taste receptors exist, if anything we are only strengthening the case that the object in question objectively exists, when the other senses are verifying this.

Notice here in the God case, the objective evidence is so weak to make any objective statement about it, that we have to retreat into abstractions to a point that xenxan has to make a last ditch effort to confuse it with the example being used in the other analogy.

Now God is confused with the comparison and apparently = a slaughtered cow that we can all enjoyably digest and Shit out.

 

I would think God would necessarily have to be one with everything, because otherwise he wouldn't have created everything -- there would have, in the beginning, been God, but just as importantly the stuff from which he creates. In order to truly create everything, God must be everything.

God is a difficult concept to discuss in an intelligent way. Either because it's nonsense and we're too intelligent to be discussing it or because we're too small to truly comprehend something that big.

I personally think all reason depends upon a sense of humor. If God spoke, maybe we would all simply laugh or find the situation quite ridiculous. Maybe God can't change anything at all, viewing it all as perfect, and simply cannot begin to do the work required to convince us he exists. Because he can't conceive of this absence of knowing whether he exists or not as being less than perfect. Maybe God is actually God but doesn't really think of itself as God, for some preposterous reason!

 

I do think there is an objective reality, I don't think this discussion would be possible if there was not an ability to organize an objective, consensual experience to reality, That seems self evident. If you are talking about in regards to experience of consciousness specifically, well I just mentioned in a recent thread that I'd consider myself a weak reductionist. I am not convinced that there is any given condition of variables and set parameters, where we could replicate 'what it's like' without experiencing it directly. I think that perhaps we could create an AI that is not 'conscious' necessarily but still passes the Turing tests of exhibiting what appears like conscious to many, but probably more due to the way our minds work.

But if you can promise me further, please elaborate! It would be a much welcomed change of pace from the barrage of questions you've had over some of the recent threads. Under what reasoning or inference is there to tell us we do not reside or 'succumb' to an objective reality?

 

What I mean is that because no one can decide how someone should react to "objective reality," one can't really say what objective reality is: strange or just normal. Some will find it bizarre while others will find it mundane. Which of the two it actually is is totally a matter of opinion, depending on how you feel about shapes. (These aren't the only two ways of seeing reality, of course, but the more the merrier.) There's never going to be a generally accepted "objective reality.". You can't say that the objective reality of an apple is that it tastes good, no matter how much you might like the apple. You have to reduce your reality in order to create objectivity. Instead of "The apple tastes good," "The apple has a taste." Is that the whole of objective reality, though, or is there also an objective reality where the apple really does taste good? I would say it seems like two or more objective "realities" are operating at once. How can you say one or the other is more real?

Speaking of robots passing a Teuring test, it looks as though your prediction may have just come true: http://io9.com/this-robot-just-passed-a-rudimentary-self-awareness-tes-1718582523

 

Agree with Humor. God is a topic that can get overly blown up and needs a little bit of a laugh because it is a never ending unwinnable debate.

If God doesn't think of himself as God then the closest us humans will have to an unannounced God is David Attenborough. If I was forced to "believe' in a/any God, that man and his life's work would be it. It will be a sad day when he goes but his vibrations will resonate through out the universe and we will be better for it.

 

Interesting article.

The objective reality would be that a) the apple actually exists and b) it has a taste. Anything beyond that, in this example, is not what I am referring to when I mean objective reality. Regardless of what opinions we may have of objective reality, it is externally real.

It seems you want to attempt to mesh an objective reality with sort of a Platonic Idealism,. That, in the example, perhaps there are objectively ideal (pretty much a paradoxical phrase in philosophical terms) "good apples" which exist somewhere out there. Although with Plato's idealism, he essentially saw qualities of ultimate goodness existing in dimensions all unto themselves, where humans received the 'deteriorated' version of that reality. So even if we include that type of view, I think we are still stuck with our experience and I am not persuaded by your promise but it is an interesting idea nonetheless.

 

I'm not trying to combine the two. I am just deliberating upon the fact that two seem to exist. I highly question whether someone who claims something looks, tastes, or sounds good or bad really believes they are referring to a reality that is entirely personal with no empirical quality whatsoever.

 

If I were pressed to respond to the notion that "what's good or bad for me is good or bad for everyone" in regards to food, or perhaps even otherwise, I'd probably take the serendipitous route to evolution and explain it primarily in terms of biological imperatives.

Perhaps following that could be secondary explanations revolving around the aesthestics of what's good and bad, which is likely to be delienated by culture primarily. So for food , we may have the McDonald's ad, or dieting, food abstination for religious reasons, famous restaurants, etc. I'm not as comfortable in explaining this in an objective framework however, we've moved from something that appears to be prevalent in most all mammals to human specific parameters, which do not even come close to approaching comprehensiveness within the species.

 

What I'm asking is is what is good or bad for me itself an objective state that is either good or bad for everyone else. Isn't it possible that the apple becomes so deeply associated with the experience of itself, and so do you with yourself, and both of you with each other, that objectively you are three things coexisting simultaneously in one form? One could never truly discern the difference between the three, as the apple is consumed, becomes fused with the energy we are, the energy which sustains all three of us becoming one. And it could be that our one form encapsulates all of them. That there is a complete similarity between the brain and the cosmos. It's just completely the opposite of what we all assume, which is that we are someplace "outside." But we can absorb all of these places into our brains, if we have enough time. Or we could absorb it all into a big enough brain. But still the effect is the same; you are in the middle of the universe, so to speak, experiencing the full of it. You aren't really just experiencing any small part or any single part, because without any part there would not be the same whole. And the whole does become a part of your consciousness, just as photographs of space have truly expanded the human psyche. We are evolving due to what environment we truly know ourselves to exist in, and every single part plays a role in what we truly know to exist.