Comment by okdjnfweonfe | Hacker News Reader

Comment by okdjnfweonfe | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> In fact, just like with the invisible dragon in the garage, when we look at your brain to find you, we see nothing. You are the invisible dragon in the garage of the brain.

Except I can scream really loud, god can't

I effect things, the invisible dragon doesn't effect things, just going "both of these are invisible" misses the point of that, IMO

- - -

But then we can go with "oh but people obviously are affected by god la it changes how they act and how they reason" or "What is effecting things actually, does anyone but you know you exist? is anyone else real?" or other such stuff but, it reaches the unfun point of people searching for dictionaries so they can have the winning definitions of words, as opposed to discussing the core aspects.

Mathematicians don't seek to make their proofs as over the top complicated as possible, bringing in multiple schools of thought, just to say if X is or is not equal to God.

- - -

God is meant to have presence in everyone's life, yet, for my perspective and I imagine for the perspective of others, he doesn't. So either he doesn't, or he is hiding, if he is hiding, he probably has a good reason to, probably doesn't want the worship.

> Except I can scream really loud, god can't

> I effect things, the invisible dragon doesn't effect things, just going "both of these are invisible" misses the point of that, IMO

According to neuroscience, you don't do any of that. Electricity and neurotransmitters slosh around and cause those things. There is no 'you' willing that.

> God is meant to have presence in everyone's life, yet, for my perspective and I imagine for the perspective of others, he doesn't.

God is awareness. He is the cause of perceiving. But yes, most take consciousness for granted.

As I said

> it reaches the unfun point of people searching for dictionaries so they can have the winning definitions of words, as opposed to discussing the core aspects.

No one wants to play, "X does Y" "Oh but actually X is (a different definition of X)"

Its argument baiting, and its also wrong, Neuroscience doesn't have a stance on the philosophical questions of consciousness, And the philosophical questions of consciousness majorly assume that it exists.

> Electricity and neurotransmitters slosh around and cause those things.

Thats parts of my meatbag of an entity, which is recognized by most governments, and almost every person in the world, to be "me", to be the person that I am, everyone agrees this is a fine definition, but whatever.

This arbitrary meatbag with energy in it makes a noise, the god meatbag does not make a noise.

A brick makes a noise when its dropped, god doesn't

Atoms interact with one another via their forces, god doesn't

Its the exact same statement as before just with some words changed over. There is no value add to this.

By concluding that humans are as real as dirt and bricks brings god no closer to evidence.

> Neuroscience doesn't have a stance on the philosophical questions of consciousness

Yes they do, I saw Stanford prof Andrew Huberman say we're just a flow of electricity. Read of another neuroscientist that claimed there is no such as reason without emotion. More generally, scientists wade into philosophical waters all the time.

> By concluding that humans are as real as dirt and bricks brings god no closer to evidence.

It does, because humans are only part dirt and bricks. Consciousness is the lynchpin, the thing that cannot be explained in terms of dirt and bricks. Hence, once you admit there is more to reality than the physical, it once again becomes possible to search for God/Atman/Nibbana whatever you prefer.

The arbitrary meatbag is not the whole story of the human.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com