Could the belief in god considered a mental illness ?

a reply to: gosseyn

I agree that we dont understand how the brain transfers electrical signals into colour information
but the physical properties of light dont change subjectively when photons hit your retina in comparison to mine.

science has clearly explained why we see colour from photons of light and emission of photons from chemical reactions
its all based on the energy of the photons and their wavelengths.

The cones detect these wavelengths and the wavelength corresponds to the photons energy and its emission spectra

this information is "objective " to anyone with an EYE that has 3 cones like we humans do , dogs have 2 cones and therefore cant see the red and green part of visible light.

These arent arbitrary sensations , they are derived from physical properties of light
they exist in the brains of other animals because of the Cones in the eye.

If colour was consciousness based then we would all have different "personal " interpretations of each colour
but we dont because the spectrum is a very real objective thing outside of the brain of humans

how fruit flies see in colour

a reply to: whereislogic

The difference between "nature did it" and "god did it", is simply that we know nature exists. Why do you need to invoke an entity like a god to explain something that could be explained through what we call the laws of nature ? That's simply a case for occam's razor. We know nature exists, we know nature does things, we know there are many parameters and mechanisms of nature we don't fully understand, so why would we need to say "god did it" in this context ? Maybe let's first try to see if nature did it ? A scientist who says that his knowledge is perfect is a really bad scientist, and for anyone to say that we know everything there is to know about nature is just pure ignorance.

Let's take a stupid and simple example : you are a detective aboard a boat with 5000 passengers. There has been a murder and you have been asked to solve it. You know any of the 5000 passengers could have done it. You have only started to work the case and so you have only interrogated 20 passengers so far. What is your theory going to be ? That someone aboard the boat committed the crime, or that someone that isn't aboard the boat, that lives 4000km away in another continent committed the crime ? Why don't you first try to look if the murderer is among the passengers, wouldn't that be the more logical step given the circumstances ? Or maybe aliens from another planet did it ? Or maybe a dolphin jumped on the boat, killed someone, then went back to the sea ? Or maybe the boat is haunted by a dreadful spirit ?
Why not first look at the simpler explanation and exhaust all of its potentialities ?

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: gosseyn

I agree that we dont understand how the brain transfers electrical signals into colour information
but the physical properties of light dont change subjectively when photons hit your retina in comparison to mine.

science has clearly explained why we see colour from photons of light and emission of photons from chemical reactions
its all based on the energy of the photons and their wavelengths.

The cones detect these wavelengths and the wavelength corresponds to the photons energy and its emission spectra

this information is "objective " to anyone with an EYE that has 3 cones like we humans do , dogs have 2 cones and therefore cant see the red and green part of visible light.

These arent arbitrary sensations , they are derived from physical properties of light
they exist in the brains of other animals because of the Cones in the eye.

If colour was consciousness based then we would all have different "personal " interpretations of each colour
but we dont because the spectrum is a very real objective thing outside of the brain of humans

how fruit flies see in colour

I never said that "the physical properties of light change subjectively when photons hit your retina in comparison to mine." You are putting words in my mouth. I am saying the opposite. I am saying that photons are just photons, and that they act the same for everyone and every animal. I am saying the translation is different depending on the brain. You and me, we have the same brain functions, because we are the same species, and this is why we are able to discuss about red and blue and green etc.. The sensations are not made of photons, the sensations are a product of our brains. When we see color, we don't see photons, but we see the translation of a physical phenomenon that hits our eye. These sensations only exist inside our brain. The spectrum of light is not made of colors, it is made of photons vibrating at different speeds.

There is a step of the process that you just don't get. Colors are a translation, a representation, they are not the real thing. There is nothing colorful about vibrating photons. There is no way to know if a dog's brain translates the same wavelength into the same sensation that humans are able to experience. Just like what we call sound waves are not made of noise, but they become noise only when they hit our ears and our brains translate them.

a reply to: gosseyn

How can colour not be a real thing, if it is experienced objectively by our entire species and animals on earth ?
colour doesnt just exist in human brains as you claim

But you havent provided any evidence to support your claim
That animals and humans "translate" the physical properties of light differently and therefore see different colours in their personal experience of reality and that its all entirely subjective to each individual.

Ive provided you with evidence that shows animals experience colours the same way we do , and that is due to the cones in their eyes and the way the dm9 nerve cell in flies work very similarly to our own.

the spectrum of light based on the energy of each photon and its wavelength corresponds the emission of light and its corresponding colour detected by the cones in our eyes and the eyes of many animals so please explain again why its not real ?

a reply to: gosseyn

"Why do you need to invoke" an appeal to something "we don't fully understand" to evade the argument of induction I and many others do understand quite well?

Why are you so vague in responding to the argument of induction in question? Why do you tip-toe around the factual knowledge available regarding the effect of natural forces on molecules described in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and further elaborated on in the article in my last comment? That contradicts your beliefs, fantasies and appeals to things we supposedly don't understand (yet, but 'nature did it anyway, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards'; that attitude no longer spelled out).

Why not first look at the simpler explanation and exhaust all of its potentialities ?

The simpler causal explanation for the emergence of machinery and technology is creation (engineering) by at least 1 creator (engineer) with a corresponding level and type of intelligence and technological know-how. Not some vague description of something ""we [supposedly] don't fully understand" (yet).

So why indeed won't you look at it without looking for a way out by means of various dubious techniques, cop-outs, distracting subjects or descriptions and 'sophisticated'* blah-blah? (*: I guess that's a bit in the eye of the beholder)

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: gosseyn

How can colour not be a real thing, if it is experienced objectively by our entire species and animals on earth ?
colour doesnt just exist in human brains as you claim

But you havent provided any evidence to support your claim
That animals and humans "translate" the physical properties of light differently and therefore see different colours in their personal experience of reality and that its all entirely subjective to each individual.

Ive provided you with evidence that shows animals experience colours the same way we do , and that is due to the cones in their eyes and the way the dm9 nerve cell in flies work very similarly to our own.

the spectrum of light based on the energy of each photon and its wavelength corresponds the emission of light and its corresponding colour detected by the cones in our eyes and the eyes of many animals so please explain again why its not real ?

Can you prove to me, scientifically, that "red" exists outside of any human experience ? Can you prove, scientifically, that a light wavelength of 700nm is "red" outside of any human experience ? Can you make any computation or calculus that will define what "red" is outside of any human experience ?

If you're unable to prove it, it means "red" only happens in our human heads. Unlike gravity for example, which is computable.

And I have said it at least 5 times already : if you and me are able to discuss "red", it is because we are the same species, with the same brain, and the same brain functions that work in the same way.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: gosseyn

"Why do you need to invoke" an appeal to something "we don't fully understand" to evade the argument of induction I and many others do understand quite well?

Why are you so vague in responding to the argument of induction in question? Why do you tip-toe around the factual knowledge available regarding the effect of natural forces on molecules described in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and further elaborated on in the article in my last comment? That contradicts your beliefs, fantasies and appeals to things we supposedly don't understand (yet, but 'nature did it anyway, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards'; that attitude no longer spelled out).

Why not first look at the simpler explanation and exhaust all of its potentialities ?

The simpler causal explanation for the emergence of machinery and technology is creation (engineering) by at least 1 creator (engineer) with a corresponding level and type of intelligence and technological know-how. Not some vague description of something ""we [supposedly] don't fully understand" (yet).

So why indeed won't you look at it without looking for a way out by means of various dubious techniques, cop-outs, distracting subjects or descriptions and 'sophisticated'* blah-blah? (*: I guess that's a bit in the eye of the beholder)

So what are you saying exactly ? That today, we understand everything there is to know, and since it is the case, the only explanation left is "god did it" ?

a reply to: gosseyn

Science already has proven this, the eyes of various mammals have the same cones we do which allow us to detect the various wavelengths of light

the eye due its common evolutionary path has similar structures in mammals and other animals
allowing other mammals and non mammals with these cones to see colour

Tell me then if humans are the only ones who experience colour why do many male species have so many colourful plumes in birds and frogs to attract mates if they cant see colour ?
What would be the point in a peacock having a colourful tail ?

the science is already there , light is well understood in terms of its spectrum
colours exist to living beings with the cones that detect light of various wavelengths

Now please give me your evidence which proves your point

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: gosseyn

Science already has proven this, the eyes of various mammals have the same cones we do which allow us to detect the various wavelengths of light

the eye due its common evolutionary path has similar structures in mammals and other animals
allowing other mammals and non mammals with these cones to see colour

Tell me then if humans are the only ones who experience colour why do many male species have so many colourful plumes in birds and frogs to attract mates if they cant see colour ?
What would be the point in a peacock having a colourful tail ?

the science is already there , light is well understood in terms of its spectrum
colours exist to living beings with the cones that detect light of various wavelengths

Now please give me your evidence which proves your point

I never said humans are the only ones who experience color, again you are putting words in my mouth and at this point this discussion with you just feels pointless. If you keep pretending I have said things which I have clearly not said, I don't see the point.

Prove it to me then, prove to me that red or blue or green exist outside of human experience. You can't, because these colors don't exist outside of human experience. Other animals with eyes and brains are perceiving something, but we have no idea what they are perceiving. They might be perceiving colors we are unable to perceive, something that doesn't resemble any of the colors we know. Their brains might be creating a different sensation, producing a different translation. Again, and frankly this is the last time I say it : there is nothing "red" about photons vibrating at a certain speed. You are claiming it's the case, so you have to prove it.

All you are telling me is : look, their eyes are able to catch this or that wavelength, and that's all. You have no idea how their brain translates this or that wavelength. You suppose that because humans see red with a wavelength of 700nm, other animals also see "red", but at the same time you are totally unable to define what "red" is.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: gosseyn

"Why do you need to invoke" an appeal to something "we don't fully understand" to evade the argument of induction I and many others do understand quite well?

Why are you so vague in responding to the argument of induction in question? Why do you tip-toe around the factual knowledge available regarding the effect of natural forces on molecules described in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and further elaborated on in the article in my last comment? That contradicts your beliefs, fantasies and appeals to things we supposedly don't understand (yet, but 'nature did it anyway, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards'; that attitude no longer spelled out).

Why not first look at the simpler explanation and exhaust all of its potentialities ?

The simpler causal explanation for the emergence of machinery and technology is creation (engineering) by at least 1 creator (engineer) with a corresponding level and type of intelligence and technological know-how. Not some vague description of something ""we [supposedly] don't fully understand" (yet).

So why indeed won't you look at it without looking for a way out by means of various dubious techniques, cop-outs, distracting subjects or descriptions and 'sophisticated'* blah-blah? (*: I guess that's a bit in the eye of the beholder)

You say that is a "simpler causal explanation", but then why does it raise questions you can't answer? Questions about where this engineer you mentioned is right now, why they are so mysteriously quiet?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

why [is the architect] so mysteriously quiet?

Or, why are we so loud?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

why [is the architect] so mysteriously quiet?

Or, why are we so loud?

Oh look, here's that distraction whereislogic mentioned. Right on cue.

a reply to: gosseyn

we arent able to define what red is , yet it is easily defined by its wave length and its energy
which is the same red that every other living thing sees with eyes that see that wavelength of light
if they have the cones in their eye which detect short wavelengths of light


Science has already proved that light having different wavelengths and energy emit different colours

given the fact that all animals share an common ancestor the eyes of many mammals are the same with only slightly different properties , number of rods and cones and photoreceptors. in the visual cortex

So if you agree that animals experience colour , then they exist outside of humans experience


If you had actually bothered to read the evidence I linked you , you wouldnt be adamant that you are right

the only colours we cant percieve are ones which are outside of the visible human spectrum/

the shrimp you posted earlier , has more rods and cones and so can percieve a wider range of hues of colour

its the same with humans who cant see red green . or blue yellow , but they exist , its because their wavelengths are so close together humans cant distinguish between them.

originally posted by: gosseyn

What do we really know about random chance ? The thing is that it is "random", so how are you able to define what random chance can or cannot achieve beforehand ? And "random chance" is merely a name we give to a process we don't understand. Randomness doesn't really exist, it's just that we are not able to see and understand all the mechanisms of the process.

It is getting to a point where we are realizing that matter working without intelligible direction can not make any of the ordered systems that are all around us - organisms, astral bodies, and the equilibrium of it all.

Saying "god did it" is not an answer. It creates more questions than it solves. You have a whole lot to explain about the intelligent designer. So it's just magic and so it means that we can't comprehend it ? And that's all ? Occam's razor and all that..

Deciding whether or not the world is deterministic or probabilistic is a very important fundamental question though. If it was designed by a higher intelligence, that doesn't throw science out the window. Instead, science then becomes the understanding of how this extra-dimensional Being orchestrated things into existence, and exactly what our relation is to this Architect.

Well, does it really matter ? Evolution still explains a whole lot.

It seemed plausible for a while after Darwin postulated the theory, but then once microbiology gained steam we started realizing that the complexity of biological life gets even more profound as you go to the microscopic level. a genome that is about 3,200,000,000,000 base pairs long does not assemble itself without an intelligent guiding principle. Due to the immense amount of information and data required for a working organism, even the most base prokaryote, we can no longer consider it to be an accident. It may take a while because the probabilistic framework is what is taught in school, so essentially everyone who doesn't look into it on their own will be believing evolutionary narrative. Those that do search will also be confused by the immense amount of papers, and science blogs which never, ever contain any sort of actual conclusive proof that evolutionary mechanisms are possible, but instead rely on blind conjecture to support the theory that was never based in actual empirical evidence.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Oh look, here's that distraction whereislogic mentioned. Right on cue.

Huh? You asked why God is quiet. He sent our oldest brother to die for us and send us the message of the Christian philosophy. The loud distractions of everyday life can detract us from this straight-forward simple message.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Oh look, here's that distraction whereislogic mentioned. Right on cue.

Huh? You asked why God is quiet. He sent our oldest brother to die for us and send us the message of the Christian philosophy. The loud distractions of everyday life can detract us from this straight-forward simple message.

Assuming any of that is true, sending an innocent man to die is not a message of salvation, it's a warning. An example of what awaits the rest of humanity if we don't fall in line. Just ask Job or Abraham what loyalty looks like. Better yet, ask Noah. Can you imagine watching that kind of genocide with nothing but a thin prayer between you and cosmic Hitler?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Assuming any of that is true, sending an innocent man to die is not a message of salvation, it's a warning. An example of what awaits the rest of humanity if we don't fall in line. Just ask Job or Abraham what loyalty looks like. Better yet, ask Noah. Can you imagine watching that kind of genocide with nothing but a thin prayer between you and cosmic Hitler?

Why are you judging a situation you know nothing about?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Assuming any of that is true, sending an innocent man to die is not a message of salvation, it's a warning. An example of what awaits the rest of humanity if we don't fall in line. Just ask Job or Abraham what loyalty looks like. Better yet, ask Noah. Can you imagine watching that kind of genocide with nothing but a thin prayer between you and cosmic Hitler?

Why are you judging a situation you know nothing about?

Why are you defending a situation you know nothing about?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Why are you defending a situation you know nothing about?

From what I've read, all cultures say that it was a necessary purge to remove the evil from the world. That's the context we have of the event. Similar to the idea of destroying a cancerous before it kills the entire organism.

historical and scientific evidence of the global flood

a reply to: sapien82

You just don't get that you need a brain to transform light wavelengths into colors, into sensations we call colors, into a conscious experience we call colors. You don't get that the brain of another animal might be so different that their sensations might be different than ours. You just ignore the fact that we have no idea how these conscious experiences come to existence, how and why stimuli like vibrating photons hitting our eyes turns into a sensation we call color.