Do you ever ...

[Ana the Ist]

I'm sure I do, but it is never my intention. I have my moments when I stop to help (or listen) if it appears someone needs it, and I have my moments when I'm less than civil. But I don't think anyone takes it as a dismissal to do business at a store and then move on. I find it odd that I should be expected to converse with everyone who crosses my path. That in no way means I find their life trivial should we interact.



Quite well how? In that you rapidly escape the conversation? Control the conversation (and possibly control people as a result)? Manage to defend yourself?

We have disinterest as one motivator for how you converse. Are there others?

I didn't try to insult you...you misread....or you didn't care enough to read carefully? Which do you think? Also, go back and take another look at post 16...I never said other lives are trivialities...I said I dislike talking about trivialities in lives. There is a difference.



So you tried to insult me? Interesting. An angered response is not the only way to show interest, however. Or at least that is my opinion. Is that the only way I can indicate interest in your thoughts, or are there other ways?

I didn't try to insult you...you misread....or you didn't care enough to read carefully? Which do you think? Also, go back and take another look at post 16...I never said other lives are trivialities...I said I dislike talking about trivialities in lives. There is a difference.

So the interesting part now would be if you deliberately misinterpret...or you're in such a hurry to get your words in that you're misinterpreting?

And another mistake...you took my answer about playing out scenarios in my head for a response about playing out conversations....

I suppose there could be other reasons for this somewhat continual misunderstanding...but I feel my original assessment is most accurate/likely.

Another conversational motivator for me, if I'm being honest, is conflict. I often take contrary positions I don't actually believe in order to argue. Endearing, isn't it? Lol

 

[quatona]

So what do you think is the best way to unpack those ideas?

Inviting them to present their system of ideas and explain it. Inviting them to try to get me intrigued in their system of ideas.
(As opposed to what is done here most of the time: Taking one aspect of a system of ideas and attacking it.)

OK. All 3 of those make sense. I'm not trying to take us off topic, but dig deeper. So, let me try again. I'm basically asking what leads you to think such things have occurred?

Basically: intuition and experience.
Since all I meant to give you was an idea where I personally lose interest I´m sure you won´t expect the description of a systematic, waterproof approach from me. I don´t have such.

You know, the world is full of (wild) ideas, and we all need to decide which of them are worth our time and effort, and which aren´t. This process must not take a lot of time and effort, obviously.

We don't need to attempt to discuss all your examples at once.

Actually, I don´t want to discuss the examples at all. I tried to tell you where certain thought systems lose me, and you asked me to give you examples, for purposes of illustration.

So, how do you discern what a concept is "meant to cover"?

Well, I can simply ask. E.g. I could ask: "So you want me to consider the possibility that there is a God. Why do you think this is an important issue?"
More often than that, however, people implicitly reveal what their system of ideas is meant to cover. E.g. when a theist tells me that science can´t explain the mechanisms as to how the universe came into existence, whereas religion can. Consequently, I am expecting that this system of ideas is meant to explain it. (And I´m mildly disappointed when the "explanation" amounts to e.g. "God breathed it into existence.")

I'm curious how you separate that from the possibility that what your question about a possible hole has done is open a discussion of a deeper layer of understanding or a different facet that requires introducing new terms, concepts, etc.?

As I said, I do that intuitively and by using my experience. I think I´m not the only person who at some point gets the feeling that something for which there is a simple explanation is inflated to a monstrous thought system just so to avoid accepting the simple explanation. I´m pretty sure everyone knows this feeling at some point, and I´m pretty sure you are familiar with it.
My younger brother was a compulsive liar. For every lie that was exposed he invented a new, bigger lie to make the former lie appear plausible. And he was very good at that, I may add.
Now, if there´s a simple explanation available for an occurence (person A was alone at home when there were still cookies in the jar, and one hour later the jar was empty -> person A took the cookies), and the alternate explanation I am expected to swallow ends up involving strangers, aliens, zombies and time shifts (I am slightly exaggerating here)...well, you get the idea.
[Caveat: Don´t misunderstand me, I am not saying that a certain religious thought system is a pile of intentional lies, and I am not saying that their proponents are (compulsive) liars.]
It´s like our ability to discern a conspiration theory from an explanation. It´s not a 100% objective and safe method, but there certainly are hallmarks of conspiration theories. How many of those red flags each single individual person is still willing to accept without simply saying "Ah, come on..." is certainly subjective.

 

[Resha Caner]

I didn't try to insult you...you misread....or you didn't care enough to read carefully? Which do you think?

Well, in post #19 you were the first to use the word "insult", so you tell me what you meant.

Also, go back and take another look at post 16...I never said other lives are trivialities...I said I dislike talking about trivialities in lives. There is a difference.

Yes, and if you read post #18 carefully you'll see that I already understood that is what you meant.

And another mistake...you took my answer about playing out scenarios in my head for a response about playing out conversations....

You spoke of both conversations and scenarios. I would assume that playing out a conversation in your head is one type of scenario. Given that you said this conversation is going as you expected, I assumed you had given it some forethought, i.e. that you had played out some scenarios in your head.

But if you want to give me another type of scenario you play out that doesn't involve a conversation, I'd like to hear it.

I suppose there could be other reasons for this somewhat continual misunderstanding...but I feel my original assessment is most accurate/likely.

What are the other possibilities?

Another conversational motivator for me, if I'm being honest, is conflict. I often take contrary positions I don't actually believe in order to argue. Endearing, isn't it? Lol

I sensed that, but didn't want to presume. What are some typical positions you might argue even if you don't believe them?

 

[Resha Caner]

As I said, I do that intuitively and by using my experience. I think I´m not the only person who at some point gets the feeling that something for which there is a simple explanation is inflated to a monstrous thought system just so to avoid accepting the simple explanation. I´m pretty sure everyone knows this feeling at some point, and I´m pretty sure you are familiar with it.

I am. That's what intrigues me about some of your replies. Were I to try to communicate such a feeling, it would generally be dismissed as nonsense. Your version seems better articulated. Is that because it actually is, or just because I agree with you? I'm not sure which.

Well, I can simply ask. E.g. I could ask: "So you want me to consider the possibility that there is a God. Why do you think this is an important issue?"

More often than that, however, people implicitly reveal what their system of ideas is meant to cover. E.g. when a theist tells me that science can´t explain the mechanisms as to how the universe came into existence, whereas religion can. Consequently, I am expecting that this system of ideas is meant to explain it. (And I´m mildly disappointed when the "explanation" amounts to e.g. "God breathed it into existence.")

I understand, but might I suggest something? You can tell me if you've considered this possibility - namely that the reason you're disappointed is because you're looking for one type of explanation (scientific) and you get another (personal). Maybe these people are not articulating it well, but the underlying message is that they trust what God has told them. That's something that can't be defended scientifically.

Aside from your brother, I would hope there are people in your life whom you trust. As a child, when my father said, "I'll buy you a new baseball," that meant it would happen. I knew it as a certainty because I had experienced how trustworthy he was. But as a child I would have been unable to explain the finances of it - what his employer paid him, how he budgeted that money such that some was available to spend on baseballs, how the transaction was enacted at the store, etc. So, for a finance student doing a study on how middle class families manage their finances, I would have been a very disappointing subject to interview. That doesn't negate the truth of the situation.

Actually, I don´t want to discuss the examples at all. I tried to tell you where certain thought systems lose me, and you asked me to give you examples, for purposes of illustration.

OK, I guess we're done with that part, then.

Inviting them to present their system of ideas and explain it. Inviting them to try to get me intrigued in their system of ideas.
(As opposed to what is done here most of the time: Taking one aspect of a system of ideas and attacking it.)

That requires me knowing what would intrigue you. I'm not sure I could articulate that.

 

[quatona]

I am. That's what intrigues me about some of your replies. Were I to try to communicate such a feeling, it would generally be dismissed as nonsense. Your version seems better articulated. Is that because it actually is, or just because I agree with you? I'm not sure which.

If I were to make a guess: Feelings are typically dismissed as nonsense when they are presented as something else but a feeling. [I am not saying that this is the explanation in your case - it´s just what I have observed and experienced myself countless times].

I understand, but might I suggest something? You can tell me if you've considered this possibility - namely that the reason you're disappointed is because you're looking for one type of explanation (scientific) and you get another (personal).

Actually, I think the opposite is the case. I am not expecting any scientific, analytic, or otherwise intellectual explanations for poetry/mythology. I tend to take it for what it is.
It´s not until people approach me with their attempt to make it appear scientific, intellectually sound, logical, etc. that I start expecting a scientific, intellectually sound, logical explanation from them.

Maybe these people are not articulating it well, but the underlying message is that they trust what God has told them. That's something that can't be defended scientifically.

That may be the case, but, Resha, that´s not at all what I have been talking about when alluding to the disconnect between a religious belief (or, even worse, a personal experience - as you are describing it here), and those huge pseudo-intellectual rationalizations when trying to align them with a. ancient mythology and b. scientific facts.
IOW: I have no reason to question people´s personal experiences like their conversation with supernatural entities (albeit I reserve the right to point out that there can be other explanations for hearing voices than supernatural entities speaking).
I do not, however, believe for one second that a God - should exist such - would whisper those pseudo-intellectual piles of absurd rationalizations into the ears of His believers.

Aside from your brother, I would hope there are people in your life whom you trust.

Well, maybe my choice of example was poor: "Trust vs. distrust (in people)" wasn´t even an aspect for which I picked it.
I am even willing to give my brother the benefit of the doubt that he believed his own versions.

As a child, when my father said, "I'll buy you a new baseball," that meant it would happen. I knew it as a certainty because I had experienced how trustworthy he was. But as a child I would have been unable to explain the finances of it - what his employer paid him, how he budgeted that money such that some was available to spend on baseballs, how the transaction was enacted at the store, etc. So, for a finance student doing a study on how middle class families manage their finances, I would have been a very disappointing subject to interview. That doesn't negate the truth of the situation.

I´m not quite sure what the point of telling me this story is.
Is it something like: Sometimes the explanations are indeed more complex than one might initially have thought?
Not that I´d necessarily disagree. Then again, I don´t think it would be a major problem to explain to a child that and how the money for a baseball is or or isn´t there - without having to explain global finances or something, along with it.

That requires me knowing what would intrigue you. I'm not sure I could articulate that.

Well, you never know that beforehand.
Oftentimes I try to offer a person an idea which I feel might be helpful in their situation, and it takes us hours of conversation until I finally find a way of even only having the idea touch them (and sometimes it never gets to this stage).
It takes creativity.
To give you a hint: Personally, I always find myself easily intrigued by the beauty and elegance of an idea.

 

[bhsmte]

So psychology is only part of the explanation? What do you think is the other part, then?

I'm also curious to know what you do when someone says you have misinterpreted the Bible.



OK, but why does a Christian fill this need in a way that is different than a non-Christian?

I believe you didn't understand my answer. I stated that to me, psychology explains the development of the many the many contradictions of the christian story and it also explains the dynamics between people buying into it, and performing the psychological gymnastics to ignore the contradictions, that they would not do in other portions of their life.

Psychology explains the motivation behind our behavior, it is what drives it and we all have our unique needs and sometimes those needs will change over our lifetime.

A christian fills the need by buying into the story, because it fits with their needs, plain and simple. Sometimes their needs change and they no longer believe the story, such as myself and many others who have moved away from christianity.

In regards to interpreting the bible? Well, of the thousands of different interpretations amongst christian's themselves, there is little debating the fact their are major contradictions that do not align with an all loving, all powerful all caring God for all creation. And by the way, all the different interpretations from the many denominations of christianity, are all an attempt to choose the interpretation, that meets a person's needs.

 

[Paradoxum]

Hmm. So consciousness is your criteria? What is the means for establishing consciousness? It seems to me that is highly susceptible to anthropomorphism. In that sense, I see why your "alien" thought experiment would be relevant. Still, I don't see why you need to wait. You have all kinds of life surrounding you that you could use to test your ideas of consciousness. I wouldn't dismiss other animals too quickly, and I don't find your reasons for doing so at all convincing. I could easily demonstrate the desire animals (and plants for that matter) have to live.

Consciousness isn't the criteria either. I explained my criteria in my previous post.

(I said self-consciousness by the way).

Also in the previous post I mentioned animals, and in the post before that I said that animals like dolphins and other apes could be considered to have the right to life.

Maybe I am wrong, but I need you to say why you don't find my points convincing. Quote what I say, and then pick it apart if you think it's wrong.

I don't think you can demonstrate that most animals desire to live, and you definitely can't show plants desire to live. Plants don't desire anything, just like rocks don't desire to fall or roll. It happens without mental content.

I can see why you would think a gazelle running from a lion would be because it desires to live, but I'd say that is just projecting your feelings on the animals. If the animal can't conceive death, or even that it has a self, it can't desire to live. I'd think what the gazelle desires is to escape the scary lion, or to avoid pain.

How do you know you have succeeded in finding another consciousness? I suspect your answers might not differ much from the way I know other people have souls. IOW, might your "consciousness" just be a secular version of my "soul"?

One way self-consciousness is currently tested is by being able to recognize oneself in a mirror.

But if self-consciousness has to be guessed at, in a similar way to a soul, that doesn't make the two things the same. We know self-consciousness exists, as we ourselves feel it. Self-consciousness is a mental quality, and we know that beings have mental qualities. The soul on the other hand is a spiritual thing, and we have no direct evidence for the spiritual, like the physical and mental.

If you want to say a soul is NOTHING more than consciousness, I'd welcome that. If you aren't willing to say that they aren't the same.

I don't know your personal understanding of the soul, so it is hard to say much more. My understanding of the soul changed as read more and thought through the issue more.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example, Galileo was a devout Catholic - and also a brilliant scientist. IOW, not all that bears the stamp of the RCC is evil. Still, if you're not interested that's fine.

I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater... the Catholic church isn't innocent and cute. I want a corrupt 'authority' seen for what it is.

I agree that individual Catholics aren't bad, but everything good they support could be accepted without the crazy amoral or immoral stuff. Galileo was a Catholic and a scientist... he did science, not catholic science, so no credit goes to the church for that.

I do like the new Pope, but if he thinks contraception is immoral, some part of his morality is seriously messed up (just to give an example).

 

[Resha Caner]

If I were to make a guess: Feelings are typically dismissed as nonsense when they are presented as something else but a feeling. [I am not saying that this is the explanation in your case - it´s just what I have observed and experienced myself countless times].

That's an interesting insight. I'll keep it in mind. Though some seem to think feelings are inferior to reason, and in that I would disagree. I don't think feelings are inferior, though the words we have for communicating them often fall short.

Actually, I think the opposite is the case. I am not expecting any scientific, analytic, or otherwise intellectual explanations for poetry/mythology. I tend to take it for what it is.

It´s not until people approach me with their attempt to make it appear scientific, intellectually sound, logical, etc. that I start expecting a scientific, intellectually sound, logical explanation from them.

As I said, many experiences are difficult to explain. Often the attempt requires establishing some type of logical structure and the attendant concepts and terms. So, I think its worth the effort to put them on an intellectual basis as an attempt to explain what it is like to experience God. Narrative is another good method for doing that.

For my part, I've never claimed my explanations to be anything more than that - an attempt to explain my experiences. I'm not claiming God whispered these explanations in my ear. With that said, God (and the Bible) is more than mythology to me. So, I'm still not sure what part irritates you. If you think the Bible is an irritating exercise in defending a theology, I'm afraid I can't do much to help that.

It takes creativity.
To give you a hint: Personally, I always find myself easily intrigued by the beauty and elegance of an idea.

I'll think on it, but I'm not sure that's enough yet for me to make the attempt. It might be easier if you just chime in when I say something that intrigues you.

 

[Resha Caner]

I believe you didn't understand my answer.

I suppose I didn't. Your restatement puts me back where I was before. I wish I could explain why your reply seems an empty one to me, but it's not happening.

 

[bhsmte]

I suppose I didn't. Your restatement puts me back where I was before. I wish I could explain why your reply seems an empty one to me, but it's not happening.

That's ok, we are not always going to be satisfied, with another person's response or explanation.

 

[Resha Caner]

Consciousness isn't the criteria either. I explained my criteria in my previous post.

(I said self-consciousness by the way).

I'm tempted to reply, "Whatever." It's your term to define, so I'll use it as you please. I didn't mean to truncate anything. The whole thing seems arbitrary to me, which is probably why I butcher it when I reiterate.

Also in the previous post I mentioned animals, and in the post before that I said that animals like dolphins and other apes could be considered to have the right to life.

I recall that, but it came across as something you're willing to concede rather than something you are convinced has met your criteria.

Maybe I am wrong, but I need you to say why you don't find my points convincing. Quote what I say, and then pick it apart if you think it's wrong.

As I said to quatona, I'm just trying to discuss your thought experiments, not debate you. Maybe I'm not doing it well. Especially given the reply that follows from here.

I don't think you can demonstrate that most animals desire to live, and you definitely can't show plants desire to live.

If you want to define for me the desire to live, that would clarify our difference. Until then, I say I definitely can demonstrate it. A gazelle running from a lion is exactly what I mean. A flower turning to face the sun is an example for a plant.

You don't seem to realize how you give the impression of constantly moving the goalposts to suit the conclusion you want. If I give a counter-example it is wrong, and your reason for saying it is wrong is something you can't possibly know. Our conversation is going something like this:

Animals don't have self-consciousness.
How do you know?
We know because animals only respond via biological mechanisms.
How do you know humans aren't responding via biological mechanisms?
Because I can feel it.
Uh, so how do you know animals don't feel it?
And we go round again, alternating between statements that you think are scientific and statements about how you feel. Again, it all seems very Paradoxum-centered - very anthropomorphic.

A mirror is a test? Why? Because people recognize themselves in mirrors? How is that not anthropomorphic? Only species that have evolved eyes can be self-conscious? I think you need some better tests.

- - -

P.S. I wanted this to be about your ideas and not mine. But, I'm still not seeing how my methods for soul are different than your methods of self-consciousness. I'm not sure we mean exactly the same thing, but they seem very similar to me. Likewise, I can say I have a soul because I feel it. From there I know other people do because they communicate it. As I use the word, I'm OK with saying the soul is a purely material part of the human body - but it is the thing which allows us to perceive the spiritual.

 

[quatona]

That's an interesting insight. I'll keep it in mind. Though some seem to think feelings are inferior to reason, and in that I would disagree. I don't think feelings are inferior, though the words we have for communicating them often fall short.

Actually, I have never even tried to compare reason and feelings in terms of superiority/inferiority. I wouldn´t know how to do that.
Also, I think that the words we have are pretty sufficient for communicating our feelings. "I am sad" is a not a complicated statement to make; I suspect the problem is rather that - for some reason - many people are under the impression that expressing their feelings makes them vulnerable - unless they make at least the attempt to rationalize or justify those feelings immediately.

As I said, many experiences are difficult to explain. Often the attempt requires establishing some type of logical structure and the attendant concepts and terms. So, I think its worth the effort to put them on an intellectual basis as an attempt to explain what it is like to experience God.

Well, I don´t agree at all.
There is no need to "explain" an experience, in the first place - particularly not when you can´t explain it.
E.g. when I go to the doctor and want him to get an idea of my experience of pain, I needn´t (be able to) explain it to him. All I can and am expected to do is to describe it.
Nobody expects you to deliver an explanation along with the description of your experiences. But maybe you are actually interested more in convincing others of the accuracy your (self-)diagnosis (interpretation) of your experiences, rather than in communicating your experiences and feelings?

I suspect that this is the main reason why our conversations aren´t getting any deeper: Your posts are all about rationalizations, and that´s not doing much for me.

Narrative is another good method for doing that.

Yes, narrative (and other art forms) are excellent ways of communicating our experiences.

For my part, I've never claimed my explanations to be anything more than that - an attempt to explain my experiences. I'm not claiming God whispered these explanations in my ear.

Well, initially I was talking about something completely different (complex rationalizations), but in response to that you asked if it´s possible that I am expecting people to communicate what God has told them in scientific/intellectual terms.
So I responded to that question: When people come to me with complicated rationalizations I have a hard time believing that this is their way of telling me what God told them.
It´s more the other way round: I expect them to present their experiences as experiences, their feelings as their feelings (which is a good opportunity for me to find out where they and I can connect feeling- and experience-wise), but apparently they feel the need to "explain" something to me in intellectual/scientific terms even before they have described it (or instead of it).

With that said, God (and the Bible) is more than mythology to me. So, I'm still not sure what part irritates you. If you think the Bible is an irritating exercise in defending a theology, I'm afraid I can't do much to help that.

I´m sorry for communicating so poorly. I didn´t mean to say that the bible is an irritating exercise in defending a theology, and even upon re-reading my last post I can´t find any statement to that effect. Rather, I find it irritating when people use reason and intellect to defend a narrative (and their view that it is e.g. a quasi-scientific work).

I'll think on it, but I'm not sure that's enough yet for me to make the attempt. It might be easier if you just chime in when I say something that intrigues you.

No problem. I didn´t ask you to get me intrigued. You asked me what would be a good method to get me intrigued, so I was under the impression it was something you would like to try.
To be honest, I am afraid this won´t happen. Our approaches and preferences are too different, and our inner paths are simply not crossing (at this point in time).

Which brings us back to the OP and the start of our conversation: I´m not very much into making thought experiments just for the heck of it.
Maybe, after all that´s been said in the meantime, you understand that statement better than when I made it the first time.

 

[Resha Caner]

Also, I think that the words we have are pretty sufficient for communicating our feelings.

Maybe you're just better at it than I am. Or maybe it's not as simple for us to understand the feelings of others as you suppose.

E.g. when I go to the doctor and want him to get an idea of my experience of pain, I needn´t (be able to) explain it to him. All I can and am expected to do is to describe it.

Since I was once misdiagnosed by a doctor (the result was life-threatening) I must be pretty poor at this - or maybe we're all poor at it (except for you). I can recall when I had young children frequently commiserating with other parents about how hard it was to figure out what was really wrong when your children are sick.

(which is a good opportunity for me to find out where they and I can connect feeling- and experience-wise)

Is it possible that two people might lack this bridge of shared experience? I've never been in a war. So, I can imagine what it was probably like, but I don't pretend to understand.

I suspect that this is the main reason why our conversations aren´t getting any deeper: Your posts are all about rationalizations, and that´s not doing much for me.

Hmm. How so? If this appears to be a general character of my posts, what about them gives that impression? Specific to this thread, what am I trying to rationalize?

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm tempted to reply, "Whatever." It's your term to define, so I'll use it as you please. I didn't mean to truncate anything. The whole thing seems arbitrary to me, which is probably why I butcher it when I reiterate.

I've explained why I use this criteria, but you didn't quote that bit, so that probably doesn't help.

I recall that, but it came across as something you're willing to concede rather than something you are convinced has met your criteria.

I think they have met the criteria. I just haven't been saying I'm definitely sure.

As I said to quatona, I'm just trying to discuss your thought experiments, not debate you. Maybe I'm not doing it well. Especially given the reply that follows from here.

Well you seem to be asking a mix of discussion and argument questions. If you say you aren't convinced, that is a more argument type statement. If you explain why you aren't convinced (or don't understand, if it's a discussion), I can better explain my thoughts.

I am happy to have a discussion though.

If you want to define for me the desire to live, that would clarify our difference. Until then, I say I definitely can demonstrate it. A gazelle running from a lion is exactly what I mean. A flower turning to face the sun is an example for a plant.

Firstly a desire must be mental, so that discounts a flower. Saying a flower desires life because it turns towards the sun is no different than saying rocks are scared of heights because they falls downwards.

Anyway, if I say a a being has a desire to live, I mean it values the continuation of its Self. I don't know if you meant for me to explain how I came to that thought?

As I've explained before, I think whether something is wrong is connected to the will of the being involved. eg: killing is wrong because the being doesn't want to be killed, just like hitting someone is wrong because they don't want to be hit. Killing a being means the ending of that beings' Self, so whether that being wants it's Self to continue matters.

In the last post I said how the gazelle isn't specifically concerned about life. If you are going to contradict what I say, it would be helpful if you could say why you think what I said was wrong. You say you want discussion, but contradicting me like that is argumentation. I'm not trying to attack you... it would just be nice if you ask my opinion OR argue against me (giving fully explanations). Doing both is just frustrating.

If I give a counter-example it is wrong, and your reason for saying it is wrong is something you can't possibly know. Our conversation is going something like this:

Even if the self-consciousness of another being isn't something we can KNOW, I think it's something we have to make an educated guess on. That, or we all stop eating and go extinct, etc. I'd agree that this is sort of like the soul, though it is reasonable to think mental capacities might be understood through behaviour and brain science (because mental states affect behaviour).

Animals don't have self-consciousness.
How do you know?
We know because animals only respond via biological mechanisms.

I don't think I would have said that because I don't think animals are merely robots. I think they do have consciousness (which is different from self-consciousness).

I said plants only respond via biological mechanisms though. Perhaps you confused the two.

How do you know humans aren't responding via biological mechanisms?
Because I can feel it.
Uh, so how do you know animals don't feel it?
And we go round again, alternating between statements that you think are scientific and statements about how you feel. Again, it all seems very Paradoxum-centered - very anthropomorphic.

You are wrong to cut the explanation off at that last question. The answer to that question wouldn't go back round to what you thought I said before (which I've already said is a false expression of what I've said).

You say it is anthropocentric, but you haven't explained why. Me saying that I know I am self-conscious because I feel it isn't anthropocentric. I haven't said that humans are special so only they would feel that. In fact, I've named a number of animals which I think also have the same mental quality...

A mirror is a test? Why? Because people recognize themselves in mirrors? How is that not anthropomorphic? Only species that have evolved eyes can be self-conscious? I think you need some better tests.

It's used because a being must be able to conceive of themselves to be able to recognize that the image in the mirror is themselves.

I'd agree that it isn't a good test for animals without eyes. That doesn't mean the mirror test for animals doesn't work though. We can't see into the minds of other beings, so all we can do is try our best to build a reasonable understanding of others. If you wish to criticise the lack of perfect information, all I can say is sorry about that. We have to do the best with what we know.

P.S. I wanted this to be about your ideas and not mine. But, I'm still not seeing how my methods for soul are different than your methods of self-consciousness. I'm not sure we mean exactly the same thing, but they seem very similar to me. Likewise, I can say I have a soul because I feel it. From there I know other people do because they communicate it. As I use the word, I'm OK with saying the soul is a purely material part of the human body - but it is the thing which allows us to perceive the spiritual.

I don't mind it being a discussion about my ideas, but if you criticise me I'll ask for an explanation.

Maybe the methods for figuring out if someone has a soul or self-consciousness aren't totally different. I'd think the important difference is the starting point.

eg: When I say I feel self-conscious, what I am feeling is self-consciousness. When you say you feel that you have a soul, what you are feeling is what you call the spiritual. You don't feel your soul, it is something you make up afterwards to explain the feeling. Even when you 'perceive the spiritual' what you are actually doing is giving an interpretation to a feeling which could be interpreted as non-spiritual.

 

[quatona]

Maybe you're just better at it than I am. Or maybe it's not as simple for us to understand the feelings of others as you suppose.

Most likely my approach is different. That´s what I am trying to tell you all the time: "Understanding" is one thing (it depends on analysis, diagnosis and other such congnitive, intellectual processes). This is not what I am talking about.

Communicating a feeling is easy (and so is receiving the message). It is easy to say "I am sad" when I am sad, and the message "I am sad" is easily understood by someone who has ever been sad.
I´d recommend you to observe your (and others') daily communication: How often does it really happen that you or someone else simply states a feeling? In most cases people will immediately give you an analysis, an explanation or a justification along with communicating a feeling, and in more cases than not they will not even articulate the feeling at all but merely give you an analysis (preferably an analysis of another person - like: "My girlfriend is so insensitive").
Hint: The expression of a feeling never starts with "I think". It also never starts with "I feel that [followed by a thought]". E.g. "I feel you aren´t listening to me" isn´t stating a feeling but an analytic thought.

Since I was once misdiagnosed by a doctor (the result was life-threatening) I must be pretty poor at this - or maybe we're all poor at it

Resha, what do you think the point of my example was? Did you understand me saying:
1. Leave the diagnosis to doctors/experts/other people,
or did you understand me saying:
2. An accurate description of your pain warrants a correct diagnosis?

These would be statements to which your reply would have made sense.

However, we were talking about something else, and the context in which I gave this example clearly didn´t suggest that I wanted to say #1 or #2.
All I meant to communicate was: There is an important difference between the description of a feeling and an analysis/diagnosis.

So I am a little clueless how your reply could possibly be meant to be a response.

(except for you).

Well, I know a lot of people who can describe the nature of their physical or emotional pain very colorful, very creatively, very illustratively. So I don´t think there is a point in singling me out just because you may find it hard.

I can recall when I had young children frequently commiserating with other parents about how hard it was to figure out what was really wrong when your children are sick.

And this has to do what exactly with anything?
My statements (in a nutshell) were:
1. If you want to communicate a feeling make sure you communicate the feeling instead of communicating an analysis/diagnosis.
2. It is easy to communicate a feeling.
Now, how is "Parents often have problems with making a diagnosis ('what is wrong' with their children) in any way adressing what I have said?
I haven´t been talking about diagnosis/analysis - I just used them to contrast that which I have been talking about.

Is it possible that two people might lack this bridge of shared experience?

No, I don´t think so. We all are equipped with a full set of feelings, and we all have plenty of opportunity to experience them. (Some people, though, have problems accessing their feelings.)

I've never been in a war. So, I can imagine what it was probably like, but I don't pretend to understand.

Sure, but "being in a war" is not a feeling. At best, it is the attempt of an analysis as to what causes someone certain feelings.
A feeling that people who are in a war frequently report would be, for example: "I am afraid". I have been afraid myself before - so I can connect with their feeling.

Hmm. How so? If this appears to be a general character of my posts, what about them gives that impression?

Well, all the clarifications I had to write above are indicative of it (and my previous post already consisted of such clarifications, as well):
I am saying "feeling", and you keep hearing "analysis".

Specific to this thread, what am I trying to rationalize?

I don´t know (and for detecting that you rationalize I needn´t know what it is that you rationalize). I´m not a mind reader.
But since you asked: The fact that you started a thread about other people´s thought experiments and ended up asking me how you could possibly attract me to your religious convictions (and are left completely stranded when I say: "Don´t try explanations/analysis/diagnosis, try feelings/beauty/narratives/art/inspiring things") suggest to me that you are permanently trying to rationalize your faith. (But don´t take my word for it)

 

[Resha Caner]

All I meant to communicate was: There is an important difference between the description of a feeling and an analysis/diagnosis.

So I am a little clueless how your reply could possibly be meant to be a response.

If I went to the doctor and said, "I am in pain," and the conversation ended there, I would be disappointed. Small talk is not my purpose. Whether I think I have described it well is of no matter unless the cure is successful. So, the difference between description and diagnosis means little in that instance excepting that the doctor may need to tell me to do less self-analysis and leave the diagnosis to him.

Similarly for saying "I am sad" to a friend.

But, different people communicate in different ways. Maybe it is even a cultural difference between us. Were I to be able to count on you always communicating in this manner (what I might call a very straightforward manner), I imagine it would help our conversations. But you seem to indicate you are familiar with all the varied ways people communicate, so I'm not sure if straightforwardness is really your style or if you're just trying to drive a point.

I am quite sure not all are straightforward. It's a bit ironic, because I consider myself to be very straightforward and such a trait is constantly causing me problems at work when I miss the subtext of what others are saying. And compared to Americans, the English & Asians I've interacted with are much more prone to layering what they say with all kinds of subtext.

As such, I suppose I am in the habit of trying to discern if there is more to what is said than the words themselves.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well you seem to be asking a mix of discussion and argument questions. If you say you aren't convinced, that is a more argument type statement. If you explain why you aren't convinced (or don't understand, if it's a discussion), I can better explain my thoughts.

We can all of us improve, and I will strive to do so.

But I will also note that I feel as if people here try to pull me into debates even if I don't want it. In your case, you suggested I "attack" your position. That's a more direct example. The more subtle ways are to ask for more and more detail about why I don't find a view convincing. It's hard not to be critical when that happens. Or another is to accuse me of raising an issue and then to leave it lying. In this particular thread I haven't meant to raise any issues.

My approach so far is to stay with questions as much as I can.

Firstly a desire must be mental, so that discounts a flower. Saying a flower desires life because it turns towards the sun is no different than saying rocks are scared of heights because they falls downwards.

Aren't you saying that one is physics just as the other is physics? So does that mean human behavior is not caused by physics? If not, then what causes it? As long as another cause is missing that distinguishes human behavior from plant behavior, your discrimination seems arbitrary. If both are caused by physics, then it seems you have no reason to discriminate. Or at least I don't see it yet.

Even using a mirror for species with eyes seems too subjective to me. You can't know why a creature appears to recognize himself. You don't know what is occurring in the brain. Cameras, etc. make me incredibly uncomfortable. I don't like my picture to be taken. I assume this test does not involve telling the subject the purpose of the test. As such, were I put in a room with a mirror, I would do my best to pretend it wasn't there, to act as if I don't recognize the mirror is there. So I would fail to demonstrate self-consciousness per this test.

I don't have much confidence in psychology. I've seen it fail too often in the lives of some people I love very much. I think psychology can help those people with a talent for human relations hone their innate skills, but that's about it. So, the kind of test I would expect is an understanding of the physical brain structure that connects to this idea of yours.

Is that the kind of detail you're looking for?

You are wrong to cut the explanation off at that last question.

I am sorry. I didn't mean it to encompass your entire explanation. Rather, it was my way of boiling this conversation down to its essence. It seems to me whenever I question your science, you fall back on, "Well, but I feel it," and then whenever I start to probe your feelings you fall back on, "It's not about me. We can use science."

You say it is anthropocentric, but you haven't explained why.

Maybe I have now? IMO psychology is a study of human behavior. I can't say it's invalid to attempt animal psychology, but I find 99% of it ridiculous - the type of projections of our thoughts onto animals that you have spoken of. Until we can actually communicate concepts to animals ... and there are very few of those opportunities that seem promising ... I just don't think psychology will get you there.

So that leaves brain chemistry, and I don't recall anything more than a cursory mention of that from you. So, in doing the best "with what we know", I think part of that is acknowledging what we don't know and giving the benefit of the doubt to caution.

 

[quatona]

If I went to the doctor and said, "I am in pain," and the conversation ended there, I would be disappointed.

You may be disappointed - but I don´t recall saying anything to the effect of "If you communicate your feelings this will keep you from disappointments".

Whether I think I have described it well is of no matter unless the cure is successful.

Well, I didn´t talk about diagnosis, and even less I talked about cure.
I talked about expressing one´s feelings, and how it is different from making a diagnosis or suggesting a cure.

Expressing your feelings isn´t small talk. It´s huge talk - to the degree that hardly anyone dares to.

So, the difference between description and diagnosis means little in that instance excepting that the doctor may need to tell me to do less self-analysis and leave the diagnosis to him.

Well, I didn´t say that it meant a particular thing, and I didn´t try to tell you what it should mean to you. I didn´t say anything about meaning, or about a connection between "expressing your feelings" and "getting a cure".
I merely pointed out that they are entirely different things.

So what is it with you and continuously missing what I am saying (even though I have put it in bold for you in my previous post), and instead addressing and contradicting ideas I neither express nor hold?

But, different people communicate in different ways. Maybe it is even a cultural difference between us. Were I to be able to count on you always communicating in this manner (what I might call a very straightforward manner), I imagine it would help our conversations. But you seem to indicate you are familiar with all the varied ways people communicate, so I'm not sure if straightforwardness is really your style or if you're just trying to drive a point.

"Straightforwardness"??
Were did I mention, suggest or recommend "straightforwardness"?
To whom or whose posts are you responding?

I am quite sure not all are straightforward. It's a bit ironic, because I consider myself to be very straightforward and such a trait is constantly causing me problems at work when I miss the subtext of what others are saying. And compared to Americans, the English & Asians I've interacted with are much more prone to layering what they say with all kinds of subtext.

As such, I suppose I am in the habit of trying to discern if there is more to what is said than the words themselves.

Sorry, but I have no idea how "straightforwardness" entered the discussion. I´m completely lost.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, I didn´t say that it meant a particular thing, and I didn´t try to tell you what it should mean to you. I didn´t say anything about meaning, or about a connection between "expressing your feelings" and "getting a cure".
I merely pointed out that they are entirely different things.

Yes, I realize that.

So what is it with you and continuously missing what I am saying (even though I have put it in bold for you in my previous post), and instead addressing and contradicting ideas I neither express nor hold?

I was commenting on what you said, not trying to change it or misrepresent it. In my experience that is a common aspect of conversation, to respond to what another has said by rephrasing it - walking around it and observing it from different angles to uncover what it is and what it is not.

"Straightforwardness"??
Were did I mention, suggest or recommend "straightforwardness"?
To whom or whose posts are you responding?

You seem confused a lot. It was my word - my way of describing the impression I had of your comments. Am I not allowed to comment on what you've said? If, in your opinion, the word doesn't fit, you might offer another.

If, on the other hand, I am truly such a horrid conversationalist as you seem to indicate, we can just move on with my full admission that I seem not to have any capacity to grasp what you say.

 

[quatona]

Yes, I realize that.

Cool!

I was commenting on what you said, not trying to change it or misrepresent it.

Well, you didn´t comment on what I had said, you commented on something I had never said.

In my experience that is a common aspect of conversation, to respond to what another has said by rephrasing it - walking around it and observing it from different angles to uncover what it is and what it is not.

And your comment was the attempt to rephrase what I had said?
So here´s my feedback: I don´t recognize anything that I had said in this attempt.

You seem confused a lot.

Yes, I mentioned that I have recently been confused a lot by your post.

It was my word - my way of describing the impression I had of your comments.

What exactly was your impression: That my comments were straightforward, or that in my post I talked about straightforwardness?

In the first case: Why would you leave my statements completely unresponded but instead comment on the attitude you perceive me having?
In the latter case: How did you arrive at the idea that I talked about "straightforwardness" when I continuously and repeatedly had explained what it is that I am talking about?

Am I not allowed to comment on what you've said?

As far as I am concerned, you are allowed to say whatever you wish (it may even be completely off-topic, derailing, distracting from my points, whatever), and I am allowed to point that out.
The question what you are or aren´t allowed here is between you and the administration of CF.

If, in your opinion, the word doesn't fit, you might offer another.

Well, since I don´t even know what you meant to talk about when introducing this word I have no idea whether it fits or not.
For the time being to me it appears to be either a characterization of my attitude (instead of a response to what I had said), or a sudden change of topic.
Upon further elaboration on your part, I might find out what prompted you to bring up this term, and how it´s meant to relate to the topic of our conversation.

If, on the other hand, I am truly such a horrid conversationalist as you seem to indicate,

Well, that´s your phrasing, again.

we can just move on with my full admission that I seem not to have any capacity to grasp what you say.

Simply ending the conversation might indeed be the best option at this stage. I´m pretty frustrated with it right now, I notice that I am losing my patience, and I have run out of ideas how to possibly improve it.

All the best!