May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Cognitive Dissonance (or not) Update | Main | The Future of Newspapers »



What this proofs is how far off your conclusions can be when your logic is flawed. But you knew that, it's one of your trademarks to alter a logical statement just a little bit so that the result becomes absurd.
Sometimes however I get the impression that you use this trick so often that you don't realize it anymore(?)

I'll leave it to others to point out exactly where the flaw is.


It took you this long to find that out?


If I'm a God how come I've just shit my pants?


I make mistakes, therefore I think, therefore I am. "God" is incapable of mistakes therefore he doesn't exist.


I hope you're happy: now I will have to undergo an identity crisis!

I always knew I had the body of a Goddess - a paleolithic fertility goddess, but goddess none the less.

And now, this guy on the internet says I am really a God? Does that make me a God trapped in the body of a Goddess?!?!?!

Of course, I would first have to accept the unfounded assertion that there IS such a thing as reality.... There could be, but having only imperfect sense-perceptions to draw on simply does not provide us enough reliable data.

Oh my Me! Does that mean that I am not a God any more?


As many others have noted: if you are free to define god however you like, then obviously you can define it in such a way that it exists.

But that's not really proving anything other than that you understand pedantry. :)


i enjoy this new perspective =) keep up the ego-inflating, scott =p

Chris @ Martial Development

If I remember correctly, Spinoza proved God in eight lines, and his premises were more compelling.


I have come to worship the One True Paperweight on Scott's desk.


"I am God and you are God... "
I agree.
And who the hell is the Almighty, Omnipotent, Omniscient GOD, the One described in the Bible?
Does it mean we're Atheists?


I don't buy it. This might show that we can see ourselves as god-like in our preceptions but it does not show that we are like a creator-god. If I was a creator-god I would have done many things differently, perhaps giving larger breasts to more women etc. ;)

Also - does this mean that if I didn't preceive something - it never actually happened?


nuh uh


Step 1: Define paperweight on your table as "God".
Step 2: Claim said paperweight exists and get others to confirm it.
Step 3: Therefore, God exists.
Step 4: Collect tithes.


This sounds like a form of solipsism, which isn't necessarily to say the idea doesn't have any merit - or that it does.
To take the dog in the park thing a step further, what if we both agree the dog is brown, but in reality you see brown the way I see red, for example, and I see brown the way you see blue. We just can't appreciate the fact that we see the dog differently, because we're using the same label - brown - to decribe disparate perceptions of the same thing.

Mike Mandell

Almost nobody perceives things the way I do.

Does that make me the head god?

Doug Withau

So if I get what you say in this blog, mostly, am I a God like you?
Now it is all an argument about who has the biggest God. Can't we just whip out our Gods and measure them to settle this? It will probably end up in a war over using metric or "normal" units. Sigh.

Andy Watt

(without wanting to turn this into a messageboard!)

Nick For Now -

I have read Lila - I only quoted the first book as I figured it was a quick and easy way to help without starting to go into static and dynamic quality, latching, etc etc etc...

Besides, I figured that the differences in view about how the motorcycle worked - it's either the "whole thing" and it does what it does, and you give it to a motorcycle mechanic to fix because you don't want to know the minute details (romantic), OR it's an integration of components(classical), etc etc.

They are good books and do unite some seemingly disparate metaphysics. They're cool too, man.


Good one, Scott, you've whipped up all kinds of cognitive dissidance on this one. Allow me to evaluate each one of the statements and shoot them down as strawmen arguments that don't hold their own weight under scientific scrutiny.

" 1. It is impossible for one person to see reality through the eyes of another. "

This assumption doesn't go far enough, maybe? If the mind is a self-delusion generating machine, then it could be said that it's impossible to see reality through your own eyes, much less somebody else's.

"2. By definition, a reality you can’t enter via any form of transportation is another dimension."

Height, width, depth, time, mass-energy, angular-momentum, charge.... a reality you can't enter!? I always thought that a dimension was a quantity that can be measured by any and all observers, not just a single observer.

"3. You comprise 100% of your dimension, because no one else can share exactly your perception."

If that is so, then why is there a such thing as group think? i.e. Your perception is actually an integral sum of all of the perceptions of every single living cell in your body. I consider that to be a case of biological 'group think'.... it is merely a matter of extending this idea to every living thing within an organization and then saying that an entire organization also exhibits an integral perception of reality too.

"4. If you are the entire universe within your dimension, you are God by definition, since you are everything within your own dimension."

You are merely an individual within an organization, and that oranization is merely an organization within an even larger organization, and so on and so forth, until you arive at the conclusion that the entire multiverse is God, and you are but a pawn in a much greater scheme of things.

But, other than stirring up a whole bunch of cognitive dissidance among the emoticons out there, what good is talking about philosophy anyway!?


1. It is impossible for one person to see reality through the eyes of another.

I have long argued that there are core truths which we SHARE. (Yes, some people will NOT see the core truths, even when they are a part of your reality, and more people will never even be a part of your reality.) So, even though you (and everyone else) may be mostly misunderstood, we have enough shared reality to laugh at Dilbert, have this discussion, and for you to tell your wife that you love her. You even have shared realities with your cats which allow you to communicate with them to a degree. Without some shared reality or core truths, we would be completely isolated.

Having said that, Father Guido Sarducci DID ordain me as God.


I was just reading Candice's comment about Vampirella and the party, and thinking that Vampirella surely has an entirely different reality of what happened at that party.

I bet /her/ story would go something like this: "I was dressed up as Vampirella at this party, and my costume was so damn hot that all the boys were hitting on me. I started saying to some girl that I was afraid to walk home alone in this outfit, and she starts getting all preachy to me about how I should have covered myself up. Damn prissy bitch. Then I pushed her and she fell down the stairs, and her skirt went up and the whole party saw her fat ass. I never saw THAT girl at another party!"

Is that proof of God's existence?

Nick For Now

I am a God the same way one of my red blood cells is a God the same way the city of New York is a God. Since I'm not a consistent being (i have concious thoughts that contradict eachother) then I'm actually made up of hundreds of dimensions that I can't even verify with myself. just like new york, just like a cell. I think both are "alive" in the sense that they perceive and react with the environment around them, and that they created themselves. I think the food chain goes like this (in order of how concious they are):

cell < me < New York

Also, guy that read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", you should read his second book, Lila.

[right on man you are so correct -- Scott]

[No way did I actually reply to this lame post. -- REAL Scott]


My sister says that when we were 3 and 6 we saw some gnomes or smurfs come out of the bookshelf and do a dance around us. The weirdest part is I remember it exactly as she does, but I thought I had dreamed it!!!
Here are the facts according to us:

1. We were sitting in the living room watching TV
2. We heard signing of many little voices from the bookshelf on the far end of the living room
3. A group of elfs or smurfs came out walking in line and they made a cicle around us; they were about 3" tall.
4. They sang and danced for a while, it was fun, we were laughing.
5. We have no recollection of how it ended.

Perhaps we were in the same universe for a moment or we both had the same dream.

Patrick M

I know you are paraphrasing, but premises 2, 3 and 4 are false.

It is important to have the exact wording he used originally, because distinctions between 'seeing' entering' and 'comprisng' are vitally important in determining the soundness of the reasoning used.

As it is:

Premise 2 is false as well as irrelevant. We live in 3 dimensions that we CAN enter, therefore the definition is incorrect.

Premises 3 and 4 are invalid because they rely on 2 which is invalid.

Cristian Cornea

That's exactly the case when you and someone else see a red object that may or may not appear the same colour to both of you. What you know as red may not appear into the other person's eyes the same way, yet there is no way of finding out.

I guess if you can comprehend another person's universe, there'd be no autist people...


hmm... what happens if I send to myself an email via one of those services that sends back the email lets say two years later?

Can I probably misunderstand myself?

Sometimes I read in my diary and find that my memory is partly wrong. Am I a multitude of gods? Heaven!

The comments to this entry are closed.