Dear Theist...

[hiyymer]

lol. "Redness" of red.
The redness of red isn't like trying to grasp infinity, it's like trying to translate the light spectrum in to information.

Yes, but the information is interpreted by our brains as "red". Why is red "red" - where does that actual colour that we so take for granted come from? I know this is a bit silly, but please indulge me for a second and imagine our brains had interpreted the different wavelengths of light as patterns, so "red" would be monochrome clusters of hexagons, "green" would be monochrome clusters of triangles and so on. In such a scenario the concept of red as a "colour" would be just completely inexplicable because our minds would be completely unable to grasp the concept of colour.

Explain the colour red to me. Explain the mind's interpretation of that particular wavelength of light. Explain the properties of "red".

The actual "colour" comes from how the light reacts with our cells. 'red' is still red, even the red as we see it exists when we're not there. Nothing is dependant on our consciousness observing it. We merely have the tools to look at red in a particular manner.
Bats "see" in sound, does that mean that their sound is different to our sound? No, that's utter fucking nonsense. It's precisely the same sound viewed in a different way. Our 'view' of red, is a view of one characteristic, it isn't something created by us.

Devogue already answered that perfectly. You just keep insisting. There is nothing out there except photons traveling in a certain wave pattern. Some other species' brain could experience that wave length as an entirely different color; say what we call blue. So then would blue/red be out there, or only red or only blue, or are we the only species that counts?

[devogue]

What the hell are you even talking about? Red is something I can see. The t-shirt I have on right now is red. So what?

Ani, you know I don't believe in God, and you know I don't accept this phenomenon as evidence for God. It's not woo or anything like that - it's just something we don't understand.

Red is something you can see - your t-shirt is red. But why is it red? Explain red. It is obviously our minds' interpretation of light with a wavelength of about 700nm, but why is that representation a phenomenon called "colour" and why is that particular shade of colour "red" as we know and recognise it? How did our brains create the concept of colour as an interpretation of light wavelengths in the external universe?

[Animavore]

What the hell are you even talking about? Red is something I can see. The t-shirt I have on right now is red. So what?

Ani, you know I don't believe in God, and you know I don't accept this phenomenon as evidence for God. It's not woo or anything like that - it's just something we don't understand.

Red is something you can see - your t-shirt is red. But why is it red? Explain red. It is obviously our minds' interpretation of light with a wavelength of about 700nm, but why is that representation a phenomenon called "colour" and why is that particular shade of colour "red" as we know and recognise it? How did our brains create the concept of colour as an interpretation of light wavelengths in the external universe?

Why does there have to be a reason? I could ask why I just saw this message now as Bart found out Millhouse is with his ex? It's a waste of my time to even contemplate a reason for it. And I can nearly be sure that any assumption I make will be wrong. I could palliate myself and say that God willed it that way, but then I have to ask why again, why did God will it that way? I could then say, mine is not to question why?
My way asks one pointless "why" less. Two, in fact.

[charlou]

How did our brains create the concept of colour as an interpretation of light wavelengths in the external universe?

my understanding .. Our brains didn't 'create the concept', but simply became aware of the physical properties of light wavelengths through experience over time as function and faculties evolved.

[devogue]

How did our brains create the concept of colour as an interpretation of light wavelengths in the external universe?

Our brains didn't 'create the concept', I don't think, but simply became aware of the physical properties of light wavelengths through experience over time as function and faculties evolved.

But it had to create it because colour in itself is not a property of light wavelengths. The concept of colour exists entirely within the brain. Once again, I think that it's an evolutionary thing - it's just extremely weird.

[charlou]

How did our brains create the concept of colour as an interpretation of light wavelengths in the external universe?

Our brains didn't 'create the concept', I don't think, but simply became aware of the physical properties of light wavelengths through experience over time as function and faculties evolved.

But it had to create it because colour in itself is not a property of light wavelengths. The concept of colour exists entirely within the brain. Once again, I think that it's an evolutionary thing - it's just extremely weird.

we just gave it a name when we became articulate

[hiyymer]

What the hell are you even talking about? Red is something I can see. The t-shirt I have on right now is red. So what? Most people agree on what red is except those that are colour blind. People who say they experience "god(s)" do not agree on what it is. Some say it's "love", others "hate", some say "awe", some say it's "mystery", the fact that people can't uncouple their descriptions of god(s) from their human emotions or experiences suggests that, rather that there is a god, they are mistaken. You have to ask which is more likely? Is there a god that created us, or do the anthropomorphic analogies and descriptions of god(s) suggest that we created god out of our imagination?
I'm going with the latter. The former is just too silly to take seriously.

Very scientific. God did not create us. That is an entirely different assertion, at least if you mean actually physically create. For that to happen God would have to exist in what really is; not just in our experience. In the meantime I have no reason to doubt people when they say that they transparently experience, believe in, god.

[hiyymer]

How did our brains create the concept of colour as an interpretation of light wavelengths in the external universe?

Our brains didn't 'create the concept', I don't think, but simply became aware of the physical properties of light wavelengths through experience over time as function and faculties evolved.

But it had to create it because colour in itself is not a property of light wavelengths. The concept of colour exists entirely within the brain. Once again, I think that it's an evolutionary thing - it's just extremely weird.

When you use the word 'concept' it's as if you mean something cognitive, like the brain came up with a logical strategy. Color just evolved by natural selection. The need to distinguish a visual field to survive produced what we have today in tiny incremental steps. The species with good color differentiation survive better than one without it. It happened through some series of mutations. Evolution has no thoughts or purpose.

[devogue]

How did our brains create the concept of colour as an interpretation of light wavelengths in the external universe?

Our brains didn't 'create the concept', I don't think, but simply became aware of the physical properties of light wavelengths through experience over time as function and faculties evolved.

But it had to create it because colour in itself is not a property of light wavelengths. The concept of colour exists entirely within the brain. Once again, I think that it's an evolutionary thing - it's just extremely weird.

When you use the word 'concept' it's as if you mean something cognitive, like the brain came up with a logical strategy. Color just evolved by natural selection. The need to distinguish a visual field to survive produced what we have today in tiny incremental steps. The species with good color differentiation survive better than one without it. It happened through some series of mutations. Evolution has no thoughts or purpose.

Indeed - I should have put "concept" in inverted commas.

[Animavore]

What the hell are you even talking about? Red is something I can see. The t-shirt I have on right now is red. So what? Most people agree on what red is except those that are colour blind. People who say they experience "god(s)" do not agree on what it is. Some say it's "love", others "hate", some say "awe", some say it's "mystery", the fact that people can't uncouple their descriptions of god(s) from their human emotions or experiences suggests that, rather that there is a god, they are mistaken. You have to ask which is more likely? Is there a god that created us, or do the anthropomorphic analogies and descriptions of god(s) suggest that we created god out of our imagination?
I'm going with the latter. The former is just too silly to take seriously.

Very scientific. God did not create us. That is an entirely different assertion, at least if you mean actually physically create. For that to happen God would have to exist in what really is; not just in our experience. In the meantime I have no reason to doubt people when they say that they transparently experience, believe in, god.

I've no reason to doubt that they experience or think they experience something but what we experience in our brains are not evidence for the existence of anything affecting us from beyond ourselves.
Ever hear of the "god helmet"? Some scientist guy can blast a part of your brain with magnetic pulses turning off the neurons and creating a sensation in the brain of the volunteer that they feel like there is a "presence" in the room with them. Can their experience be used as evidence that there is a person in the room with them? Or does the fact that this result is predictable show that the brain can be mistaken and fooled quite easily by itself?

[hiyymer]

I've no reason to doubt that they experience or think they experience something but what we experience in our brains are not evidence for the existence of anything affecting us from beyond ourselves.
Ever hear of the "god helmet"? Some scientist guy can blast a part of your brain with magnetic pulses turning off the neurons and creating a sensation in the brain of the volunteer that they feel like there is a "presence" in the room with them. Can their experience be used as evidence that there is a person in the room with them? Or does the fact that this result is predictable show that the brain can be mistaken and fooled quite easily by itself?

It doesn't matter whether there is a person in the room. It's not a real person. But it is an agent representation of something that is real, like red is a metaphor for a wavelength of light. Everything in our experience is a representation in one way or another, because it is created by our brain. It's not what's really out there. I think Freud was the first to opine that God is an agent representation for some of our innate drives. The self-caused agent is a time honored metaphor of the brain. There are self-caused agents all over the place in your experience, but most of them are correlated to a physical body. That doesn't make them real. Nothing out there in scientific what really is is self-caused. Agency is a brain-created metaphor for caused biological processes where intentionality and free will is imputed where none exists. The biological process of groupishness and mutual cooperation can be represented in the same way. Go to church. What are they talking about? "God wants us to love each other". What's not obvious about that. What is being experienced as God has a real physically corollary. It represents some thing and can be experienced transparently as some thing.

[devogue]

I've no reason to doubt that they experience or think they experience something but what we experience in our brains are not evidence for the existence of anything affecting us from beyond ourselves.
Ever hear of the "god helmet"? Some scientist guy can blast a part of your brain with magnetic pulses turning off the neurons and creating a sensation in the brain of the volunteer that they feel like there is a "presence" in the room with them. Can their experience be used as evidence that there is a person in the room with them? Or does the fact that this result is predictable show that the brain can be mistaken and fooled quite easily by itself?

It doesn't matter whether there is a person in the room. It's not a real person. But it is an agent representation of something that is real, like red is a metaphor for a wavelength of light. Everything in our experience is a representation in one way or another, because it is created by our brain. It's not what's really out there. I think Freud was the first to opine that God is an agent representation for some of our innate drives. The self-caused agent is a time honored metaphor of the brain. There are self-caused agents all over the place in your experience, but most of them are correlated to a physical body. That doesn't make them real. Nothing out there in scientific what really is is self-caused. Agency is a brain-created metaphor for caused biological processes where intentionality and free will is imputed where none exists. The biological process of groupishness and mutual cooperation can be represented in the same way. Go to church. What are they talking about? "God wants us to love each other". What's not obvious about that. What is being experienced as God has a real physically corollary. It represents some thing and can be experienced transparently as some thing.

Even though I can't explain it, "red" exists as a reaction to reality, the "metaphor" is anchored in the reality of light waves. The "God metaphor" is a reaction to a mental construct that has been built through desire and, quite simply, wishful thinking.

[Animavore]

I have no problem
I've no reason to doubt that they experience or think they experience something but what we experience in our brains are not evidence for the existence of anything affecting us from beyond ourselves.
Ever hear of the "god helmet"? Some scientist guy can blast a part of your brain with magnetic pulses turning off the neurons and creating a sensation in the brain of the volunteer that they feel like there is a "presence" in the room with them. Can their experience be used as evidence that there is a person in the room with them? Or does the fact that this result is predictable show that the brain can be mistaken and fooled quite easily by itself?

It doesn't matter whether there is a person in the room. It's not a real person. But it is an agent representation of something that is real, like red is a metaphor for a wavelength of light. Everything in our experience is a representation in one way or another, because it is created by our brain. It's not what's really out there. I think Freud was the first to opine that God is an agent representation for some of our innate drives. The self-caused agent is a time honored metaphor of the brain. There are self-caused agents all over the place in your experience, but most of them are correlated to a physical body. That doesn't make them real. Nothing out there in scientific what really is is self-caused. Agency is a brain-created metaphor for caused biological processes where intentionality and free will is imputed where none exists. The biological process of groupishness and mutual cooperation can be represented in the same way. Go to church. What are they talking about? "God wants us to love each other". What's not obvious about that. What is being experienced as God has a real physically corollary. It represents some thing and can be experienced transparently as some thing.

I've lost you somewhere along the way. Are you making an argument for god actually existing or a curious quirk of our experience which people call "God" existing?
I have no problem with the latter but if you try to use an experience of something existing to say that it exists outside and beyond the experience I don't agree. I can experience "love" but does that mean that "love" is something which permeates the universe as an entity?

[hiyymer]

I have no problem
I've no reason to doubt that they experience or think they experience something but what we experience in our brains are not evidence for the existence of anything affecting us from beyond ourselves.
Ever hear of the "god helmet"? Some scientist guy can blast a part of your brain with magnetic pulses turning off the neurons and creating a sensation in the brain of the volunteer that they feel like there is a "presence" in the room with them. Can their experience be used as evidence that there is a person in the room with them? Or does the fact that this result is predictable show that the brain can be mistaken and fooled quite easily by itself?

It doesn't matter whether there is a person in the room. It's not a real person. But it is an agent representation of something that is real, like red is a metaphor for a wavelength of light. Everything in our experience is a representation in one way or another, because it is created by our brain. It's not what's really out there. I think Freud was the first to opine that God is an agent representation for some of our innate drives. The self-caused agent is a time honored metaphor of the brain. There are self-caused agents all over the place in your experience, but most of them are correlated to a physical body. That doesn't make them real. Nothing out there in scientific what really is is self-caused. Agency is a brain-created metaphor for caused biological processes where intentionality and free will is imputed where none exists. The biological process of groupishness and mutual cooperation can be represented in the same way. Go to church. What are they talking about? "God wants us to love each other". What's not obvious about that. What is being experienced as God has a real physically corollary. It represents some thing and can be experienced transparently as some thing.

I've lost you somewhere along the way. Are you making an argument for god actually existing or a curious quirk of our experience which people call "God" existing?
I have no problem with the latter but if you try to use an experience of something existing to say that it exists outside and beyond the experience I don't agree. I can experience "love" but does that mean that "love" is something which permeates the universe as an entity?

If we use the inductively arrived at best explanation provisional theory called science as the arbiter of what really exists, then...
I am saying that God is a representation in our experience which, like everything we experience as transparently real, stands for something that really exists and is not the thing itself. "God wants us to love each other" is a story in our experience that stands for something that really exists. "God actually physically created human beings 10,000 years ago" is a story in our experience which does not stand for something that really exists. The first statement is not delusional. The second one is.

[Animavore]

I have no problem
I've no reason to doubt that they experience or think they experience something but what we experience in our brains are not evidence for the existence of anything affecting us from beyond ourselves.
Ever hear of the "god helmet"? Some scientist guy can blast a part of your brain with magnetic pulses turning off the neurons and creating a sensation in the brain of the volunteer that they feel like there is a "presence" in the room with them. Can their experience be used as evidence that there is a person in the room with them? Or does the fact that this result is predictable show that the brain can be mistaken and fooled quite easily by itself?

It doesn't matter whether there is a person in the room. It's not a real person. But it is an agent representation of something that is real, like red is a metaphor for a wavelength of light. Everything in our experience is a representation in one way or another, because it is created by our brain. It's not what's really out there. I think Freud was the first to opine that God is an agent representation for some of our innate drives. The self-caused agent is a time honored metaphor of the brain. There are self-caused agents all over the place in your experience, but most of them are correlated to a physical body. That doesn't make them real. Nothing out there in scientific what really is is self-caused. Agency is a brain-created metaphor for caused biological processes where intentionality and free will is imputed where none exists. The biological process of groupishness and mutual cooperation can be represented in the same way. Go to church. What are they talking about? "God wants us to love each other". What's not obvious about that. What is being experienced as God has a real physically corollary. It represents some thing and can be experienced transparently as some thing.

I've lost you somewhere along the way. Are you making an argument for god actually existing or a curious quirk of our experience which people call "God" existing?
I have no problem with the latter but if you try to use an experience of something existing to say that it exists outside and beyond the experience I don't agree. I can experience "love" but does that mean that "love" is something which permeates the universe as an entity?

I we use the inductively arrived at best explanation provisional theory called science as the arbiter of what really exists, then...
I am saying that God is a representation in our experience which, like everything we experience as transparently real, stands for something that really exists. "God wants us to love each other" is a story in our experience that stands for something that really exists. "God actually physically created human beings 10,000 years ago" is a story in our experience which does not stand for something that really exists. The first statement is not delusional. The second one is.

How is it not delusional? You need to first say what "God" is and then tell how you know he wants us to love each other (why "love" and not "hate" or "indifference"?) before you can substantiate saying such a thing. Anything else is complete fantasy.