Give your philosophical and/or theological definition of these terms.

Respond to what?

 

Why must his beliefs have any level of doubt? To say that his answer lacks any infers that there should be some. Why ?

 

Hyperbolic doubt is a way of doubting yourself to see which of your beliefs is true if I am understanding it correctly. So I think he was say I sound very sure of my definitions. Doubtless he will correct me if I am wrong.

 

Again, why should a person doubt himself? The question to him stands.

 

To test the strength of his or her beliefs. However let the question stand I would like to know his answer since I'm sure he has a much mor firm grasp of the concept of hyperbolic doubt.
On a side note am I correct in the assumption that you are a Christian and if so would you mind my asking a few theological questions? Be aware that I will not be attempting to shatter your beliefs (a futile exercise anyway) but instead I seek a deeper understanding of your beliefs and why you choose to believe what you do.

 

To doubt ones beliefs is not the equivalent of self doubt or doubting oneself. It is not a sin to test ones belief... I remember one passage in scripture where a man of God was skeptical as to the instructions given him by God, so he devised a test to challenge the validity of Gods spoken word.
"[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]dg 6:37[/TD]
[TD]Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
"
Yes! I am Christian. Ask, but I will not guaranty an answer prior to knowing the question.

 

How do you think god exerts his influence on the world today?

 

1. Soul - A foolish way to say self

2. Self - Me

3. Person - A being with a conscience

4. God - Desire to know the reason for self

5. Awareness - The recognition of perception

6. Consciousness - The result of chemical reactions

7. Mind - Chemical reactions

8. Perception - The result of chemical reactions

9. Conception - The result of chemical reactions, sometimes multiple chemical reactions but usually you have to pay double for that

10. Sameness - The appearance of being alike

 

In the same manner He did in the manifestation just after the creation..... "And God said... Let there be...."

 

1. Soul - A non existent an imagined manmade creation.

2. Self - The entirety of my mind.

3. Person - The physical creature societally and personally that I am.

4. God - The possibility of something beyond known reality.

5. Awareness - Thought.

6. Consciousness - Thinking.

7. Mind - The result of neural synopsis function.

8. Perception - The result of physical senses and mind.

9. Conception - Individual perception.

10. Sameness - exact replication.

 

(Beast Mode)

As you can probably guess Beast Mode....... I am going to use a quotation that shocked me when I first read it.



Christian Andreason, chapter 2:

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/

Beast Mode..... your soul.... my soul.... Senator Hillary Clinton's soul.............may have far more to it than any of us could begin to imagine????!

 

I notice that you use "concept" in defining God and Soul. Your definition of Conceptions (a plurality of concepts) states it as:

"The formation within one's mind of a new idea. A method of comparing past experiences with newly gained information in order to form a hypothesis regarding the nature of a previously unknown process or entity." I'm not sure how to unpack that. It seems like you're describing God and Soul as an mental integration process, as they are the only things you define as concepts. Why would you define these things as 'concepts' and not Awareness, Consciousness, and Mind? What intrinsically makes God and Soul "conceptual" and not Awareness, Consciousness, and Mind?

 

Can a "person" only be a homosapien? I'm curious as to whether you're anchoring this definition in biology?

 

Anyone can research, on their own time, about Sarte's ideas of reflected and unreflected consciousness. Or Kant's ideas about the 12 Categories. Or Metzinger's idea of the Ego Tunnel. But people already have a notion of this stuff even if they have no firsthand exposure to the experts in the field. Expertise is not required for this topic. But, I'll agree with you, aesthetics is informative too.

 

I like that. You are saying that there is free will, but even if you don't choose to exercise free will, you made a free will choice to do so. I'm curious what your answer is to this question: if cause and effect determines future outcomes, and free will has the power to cause an effect, then how is free will not dependent on determined outcomes?

 

I'm curious about the story of Job and, facetious or not, I'd like an answer from someone who contemplates this faith. It is clear in the Job story that God gives Satan free reign to inflict as much suffering on Job as he sees fit. BUT, Satan is NOT allowed to kill Job. Is this a commentary on the limits of Satan's powers? Is Satan NOT allowed to kill human beings. But is rather only allowed to torture them? Is Satan not supposed to be associated with the powers of death?

 

I wasn't very clear. You use the grammar of "you" in several definitions. Presumably so that "I" could better associate myself with your definitions. But you used the term "you" so frequently, and without any reference in your other definitions that it was confusing. Are you using "you" as just a linguistic device? In your definitions of Soul, Self, Awareness, Mind, Perception you used a "you" to orient those definitions. One could assume that you are presuming that a "you" has the same experience as "yourself". And thus relating these definitions to a specific experience that "yourself" has. But the lack of hyperbolic doubt comes in when assuming that a "you" even exists, or when you assume that a "you" believes that "yourself" exists. Equating a "you" with "yourself" seems to me to be quite a presumption. How do you arrive at a "you" and "yourself" having a shared experience?

 

I guess it would've been more clear to say that I lacked in understanding his answers. Hyperbolic doubt is just a philosophical tool, and not a judgement of his beliefs. A belief doesn't need a doubt to be a belief. But a doubt needs a belief to be a doubt. So much Buddha.

 

You default to "chemical reactions" a lot. So a simple question: If Perception is a result of chemical reactions, then how is Awareness NOT a chemical reaction when you define it as a recognition of perception? What exactly discerns a chemical reaction that is not itself a chemical reaction? A Mind? You define that also as a Chemical reaction. I don't quite understand the difference of these terms as you defined them.

 

I like this definition. It is compatible and useful.

Explain to me why these definitions are not circular.

So simple even a Caveman can do it?

Awareness is a noun and Consciousness is a verb?

 

I am not particularly persuaded by anecdote. It's not that I don't like you...because I do. I just think we should be free to see other people.

 

The definitions in question are meant to be circular in reasoning, as they are generally all aspects of each other. It is also likely that a "Cave Man" had many of the base mental functions of Homo Sapiens, as do the great Apes...just because we cannot recognize or understand how their brains process, does not mean they lack these things, anymore than cetaceans.

 

Are you claiming Sameness of these definitions? You defined Sameness as "exact replication". I'm not clear on your "exact replication" definition of these, so called, circular definitions is explanatory.

I didn't say they did. You are making a lot of presumptions about how Awareness and Consciousness operates. It seems like you believe that a many number of beings have the ability to be Conscious and Aware? How do you justify that?

 

As this thread is asking for "Personal Definitions", I do not see how one can make presumptions about anything... unless I somehow must do so about the things I think. I do however believe there are a great many aspects of animal life we humans do not understand, and that there is obvious self awareness and thought taking place within these creatures....one need only have a pet dog to note this.

I make no claims of "Sameness" at all...thus the differing labels and definitions. If these things were duplicates of each other...we would refer to them as the same thing. Clearly, you are either getting offended for some reason or attempting to create issues to disagree with....I am not interested in either possibility.

Have fun stormin' the castle.
[video=youtube;AjUmULa0R-8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjUmULa0R-8[/video]

 

Meh, I simply began to realize that these were all chemical reactions after I defined awareness. I could have changed awareness but didn't. Awareness, consciousness, perception, are all results of the mind and so even though the mind is the result of chemical reactions I worded it that way to show some sort of order of progression as in perception being a result of the mind.

Now I could say that the mind is this that or the other thing but beyond the science of our brain in the end its all subjective, all of this is, which is why at first I was going to put them all together and define them as the human condition.

It doesn't matter how we define these things, we experience them all the way we do because it's the only way we can.