tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3240592252699722655..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Dawkins vs. Dawkins (Updated)Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger171125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11316589291219432652020-11-12T21:47:06.731-08:002020-11-12T21:47:06.731-08:00Considering the quality of the arguments and excus...Considering the quality of the arguments and excuses that Richard Dawkins came up, he is flat-out anti-intellectual and thoroughly hypocritical. A coward, at its best, criticizing others as a living, yet becomes a wuss at the end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5093942734089637772020-10-29T00:48:35.730-07:002020-10-29T00:48:35.730-07:00Can't believe i actually thought he was like t...Can't believe i actually thought he was like the smartest guy on the planet and a hero for atheists.<br />If only the dawkins fan boys saw him for what he really is - a joke .Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15464298969989623285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81096655411277777322015-02-08T21:05:09.376-08:002015-02-08T21:05:09.376-08:00And can I just say you DO NOT need to go as deep a...And can I just say you DO NOT need to go as deep as some are going in order to justify some perceived atrocity committed by God.<br /><br />The solution is within God's very nature itself.<br /><br />Follow this logic<br /><br />1) It appears that God has done something immoral.<br /><br />2) This can be explained by only two explanations<br /><br />a - You have misapprehended the event<br /><br />b - You have misapprehended morality<br /><br />3) There is no explanation that could implicate any wrongdoing by God.<br /><br />You see, God's very nature nullifies any potential criticism of anything He does. I know this seems unfair for atheists, but this is the kind of thing you run into when you deal with maximally great beings. A similar line of thought will follow if you try to say God is mistaken about something, such as an event in history. If God says it happened and you think otherwise, the problem necessarily lies with you and your perceptions, for God by his nature is incapable of error. You are fallible. Clear Watershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01067495451323861530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12168125649685000652015-02-08T20:52:49.918-08:002015-02-08T20:52:49.918-08:00Wow... I listened to this radio interview and this...Wow... I listened to this radio interview and this clown Faircloth (yes I will call him a clown because he came across as one) was completely incoherent.<br /><br />The refusal to debate Craig is based on.... his defense of a supposedly immoral action committed by a being incapable of immoral action.<br /><br />By jove! Next time Dawkin's challenges someone to a debate, maybe they should bring up his ardent defense of 'mild pedophilia' or the necessity of aborting children with Down' Syndrome.<br /><br />We all know the truth. Dawkins will not debate Craig because he would be out of his depth. He's made so many contradictions between his published works and public statements that he would be cut to ribbons by an actual apologist. Dawkins is not a philosopher. He's a coward.Clear Watershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01067495451323861530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41494628492553133232012-01-28T04:41:49.004-08:002012-01-28T04:41:49.004-08:00Dawkins can make all the excuses (and accusations ...Dawkins can make all the excuses (and accusations about Craig's character) that he likes, and it is irrelevant. <br /><br />But for me, having read what they both write, in my mind Craig has clearly explained why Dawkin's central argument doesn't follow. Similarly Dr. Feser, and others, have clearly articulated different, and I think more damning holes. <br /><br />If Dr Dawkins does or doesn't debate his critics, it is irrelevant. He's in the position of offering invalid arguments, and not providing a reasonable response.Chuckyhttp://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85264046044449753422011-12-15T08:41:46.662-08:002011-12-15T08:41:46.662-08:00"Unless I care more about the short term than...<i>"Unless I care more about the short term than long term."</i><br /><br />If you don't care about the long term, then by definition there can't be a 'best in the long term'. If, on the other hand, there <i>are</i> things you care about over time, then 'long term' takes on importance.<br /><br /><i>"Or if I'm more sure of the short term than the long term."</i><br /><br />Which violates the condition that it's "really" the best long-term choice.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49389473890330013292011-12-13T21:07:14.522-08:002011-12-13T21:07:14.522-08:00"If something really is the best choice - or ..."If something really is the best choice - or at least, the best long-term bet - why choose something else? By definition, it's less likely to lead to outcomes you want."<br /><br />Unless I care more about the short term than long term. Or if I'm more sure of the short term than the long term. Or...<br /><br />The list goes on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77809716206700980852011-12-12T10:56:40.458-08:002011-12-12T10:56:40.458-08:00Daniel Smith - Is shutting off the life support fo...Daniel Smith - Is shutting off the life support for a brain-dead patient murder, or at least manslaughter?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26966909312274353182011-12-12T09:27:27.056-08:002011-12-12T09:27:27.056-08:00Proph - "What you are describing is basically...Proph - <i>"What you are describing is basically a method for arriving at the good -- but this method itself doesn't furnish any grounds for saying that we MUST do good and avoid evil"</i><br /><br />Is there a difference between a 'duty' and a 'commitment'? Some obligations are actively assumed (e.g. enlistment into the armed forces) and some are passively assumed (e.g. citizenship, by not emigrating).<br /><br />I'm not clear on exactly how - by what mechanism - the 'transcendent' would impose a moral obligation on someone, irrespective of their agreement.<br /><br />Whereas, if one can point to something that's good (from their perspective), and why (from that perspective), that doesn't 'impose' an obligation as such... but neither is such an obligation necessary.<br /><br />Feser himself doesn't mind science-fiction references, including to Larry Niven, so I give you the Protectors. Niven posits <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Protector" rel="nofollow">aliens with a life cycle that includes three stages: infant, breeder, and protector</a>. Protectors are hyperintelligent and have only one urge - to protect and provide for their descendants. Because of these two traits, protectors have almost no free will.<br /><br />Why is that? Because they are superhumanly smart, and have only one imperative. So, they nearly always see what the optimal course of action is for meeting their goal. Effectively, for them, everything is a puzzle with one right answer. Why would they choose anything <i>but</i> what was clearly the best available choice?<br /><br />If something really is the best choice - or at least, the best long-term bet - why choose something else? By definition, it's less likely to lead to outcomes you want.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49993045860821406992011-12-10T18:04:43.613-08:002011-12-10T18:04:43.613-08:00"I don't see where else you would be deri..."I don't see where else you would be deriving this obligatory quality from."<br /><br />What's being described isn't a moral system, despite what it keeps being called. It's just an arbitrary system that can be accepted or rejected at a whim, and which trades heavily on assumptions about what people desire and how to fulfill their desires. It falls apart even on its own terms in the usual cases (Can you get away with it versus would it benefit everyone optimally?), and outside of those terms is just another way of saying, "If there's something you really want, whether or not you 'should' really want it, maybe there are worse, better and best routes to it."<br /><br />It's all arbitrary, but the arbitrary nature of it is masked by pointing at an arbitrary rule usually custom fit to the situation. (Look at the consciousness talk.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44270190198248507622011-12-10T14:48:25.939-08:002011-12-10T14:48:25.939-08:00Steven Carr said:
"I repeat Craig's view...Steven Carr said:<br /><br />"I repeat Craig's views , channeling the late Osama bin Laden, that murder is morally obligatory and not even murder when done in the name of Craig's god."<br /><br />Murder is obligatory and not even murder when done in the name of god? Craig said nothing like this.Dark Passengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852857088560492197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62065187090619946742011-12-10T09:55:23.908-08:002011-12-10T09:55:23.908-08:00Ray, I'd be interested in your thoughts re: my...Ray, I'd be interested in your thoughts re: my post at December 8 at 10:10 AM.<br /><br />Specifically: it appears that the ethical system you are trying to articulate and defend isn't really an ethical system at all, as it lacks an injunctive character. What you are describing is basically a method for arriving at the good -- but this method itself doesn't furnish any grounds for saying that we MUST do good and avoid evil, and as you apparently deny transcendence, I don't see where else you would be deriving this obligatory quality from.Prophhttp://collapsetheblog.typepad.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86332894498165695432011-12-09T23:17:43.980-08:002011-12-09T23:17:43.980-08:00Ray, while I agree with Daniel Smith and DNW, your...Ray, while I agree with Daniel Smith and DNW, your own definition consciousness is incorrect and disagrees with the established scientific/medical definition of the term.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58479538595441229492011-12-09T16:03:20.478-08:002011-12-09T16:03:20.478-08:00Ray Ingles: "Embryological development is a p...Ray Ingles: <i>"Embryological development is a process, too, and can be disrupted before consciousness forms/initiates/manifests."</i><br /><br />Genetically, human life begins at conception - when a unique individual is formed. If no disruptive action is taken (barring natural circumstances) the process begun at conception will continue to develop along a natural pathway. This process continues outside the womb. Humans will (barring natural circumstances or disruptive action) continue to develop physically, mentally, spititually, etc. until they die a natural death. <br /><br />When someone acts to disrupt that process outside the womb, we generally call it murder (unless justified.) You have to show that there's something extra special about acting "before consciousness forms/initiates/manifests" that somehow justifies one human stepping in and stopping another individual's nature from running its course.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55361617950161097242011-12-09T12:29:03.336-08:002011-12-09T12:29:03.336-08:00Well, I don't have time to tackle much more to...Well, I don't have time to tackle much more today, and I'm leaving tonight on a weekend campout with another of my sons. Should be able to resume this Monday. A few quick points:<br /><br /><i>"But a left cross from Tyson, the effect of general anaesthetic, or a diabetic’s hypoglycaemic coma (among others) are more than just sleeping – these people can’t be said to be aware of anything (and certainly not pain or self). Indeed with general anaesthesia that’s the point."</i><br /><br />If you can point to corner cases, so can I. :)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/content/99/3/833.short" rel="nofollow">Data from 19,575 patients are presented. A total of 25 awareness cases were identified (0.13% incidence). These occurred at a rate of 1–2 cases per 1000 patients at each site. Awareness was associated with increased ASA physical status (odds ratio, 2.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–5.60 for ASA status III–V compared with ASA status I–II). Age and sex did not influence the incidence of awareness. There were 46 additional cases (0.24%) of possible awareness and 1183 cases (6.04%) of possible intraoperative dreaming.</a><br /><br />Anesthesia doesn't stop brain activity, even in cases where it does successfully block the perception and recall of pain. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness#Remembrance" rel="nofollow">The existence of implicit memory during even successful anesthesia indicates some level of awareness, even if pain and memory are suppressed.</a><br /><br />But even if we go all the way to, I dunno, reversible cryogenic suspension someday, with complete cessation of all awareness on any level for a period of time... well, as I said, "A turned-off [transistor] gate is still very different from a gate that doesn’t exist yet." And so is a gate with no voltage at all supplied.<br /><br />DNW - <i>"I guess you aren't willing after all to be the first atheist materialist I've run across to admit that you personally have no objective or intrinsic right to life that anyone is morally bound to respect"</i><br /><br />I judge this to be what you are most concerned about. And I answer... yes and no. As has been noted, <a href="http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Popular/SciFi/Heinlein.html" rel="nofollow">"What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries."</a><br /><br />Rights of necessity deal with rational persons, and the only rational persons we have clear evidence of these days is humans. But humans have a nature, and from that nature share a great deal of perspective and goals. From the perspective of human goals, other humans are important, and this gives rise to rights.<br /><br />A Hannibal Lecter - assuming an irredeemable person with an innate need to harm others actually exists - might not share that perspective or recognize that obligation. Kind of like someone who doesn't know the rules of chess won't recognize that sacrificing your queen early is a bad idea. That doesn't mean that a strategic rule like that is an 'illusion', though.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48854136524080882302011-12-09T08:25:14.721-08:002011-12-09T08:25:14.721-08:00Hi Ray,
I hope I'm not too late to join in th...Hi Ray,<br /><br />I hope I'm not too late to join in this discussion. I recently wrote an online essay called "Embryo and Einstein: Why They're Equal", which you might want to read. The address is http://www.angelfire.com/linux/<br />vjtorley/prolife.html and it is written especially for atheists. It's meant to show that even if you don't believe in God, the pro-life position is still a logical one.<br /><br />I've been corresponding with Richard Carrier about the arguments I put forward. As you can imagine, Dr. Carrier has made several good points in reply. I'll be appending a special response to his arguments in the next week or so.<br /><br />By the way, I'm the guy who first drew the world's attention to the fact that Professor Richard Dawkins was fully aware of William Lane Craig's views on genocide three years ago, back in early 2008. My online reply to Dawkins, which addresses the slaughter of the Canaanites, is available online at http://www.angelfire.com/linux/<br />vjtorley/dawkins.html ("Liar, liar, pants on fire?" Ten tough questions for Professor Dawkins).<br /><br />I'm glad to hear your son is getting better.Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1775573365331620302011-12-09T07:54:44.440-08:002011-12-09T07:54:44.440-08:00Jack "Vaughn" Bodie - "Of course th...Jack "Vaughn" Bodie - <i>"Of course the question you never really answer is, aware of what? Sometimes you hint it’s awareness of “something as basic as pain” and then in some of your combox replies you intimate it’s awareness of self that counts."</i><br /><br />Now <i>that's</i> a critical question! My answer actually echoes something you said:<br /><br /><i>"The thing you refuse to admit is that it’s rationality and, more properly, the radical capacity for rationality that makes a person a person, whether that capacity is accidentally frustrated or simply yet to develop."</i><br /><br />Rationality is, indeed, a defining factor in being a human person. But 'rationality' isn't a binary value, either present or absent. It's analog, shading in varying degrees. Drawing sharp distinctions is... <a href="http://www.cracked.com/article_19042_6-terrifying-ways-crows-are-way-smarter-than-you-think.html" rel="nofollow">difficult</a>. Likewise, it's very hard to come up with a sharp dividing line between 'day' and 'night', even though they're very different states and some circumstances are definitely 'day' and others definitely 'night'.<br /><br />Now, <i>because</i> the boundaries aren't clear, I figure we should be as cautious as possible. I have a hard time thinking that a 20-week-old fetus has much in the way of awareness of anything... but as I've said before in this very thread, "so far as I can see it can't be affirmatively ruled out after that point, so we should be cautious."<br /><br />That being said... no way does a blastula have <i>any</i> kind of consciousness. Even when the cortex <i>starts</i> forming at ~30 days... well, like I said, it doesn't interconnect with everything else for a long time after that.<br /><br />Monty Python made fun of Catholic notions of 'life issues' with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8" rel="nofollow">Every Sperm Is Sacred</a>, and I've even seen the mocking slogan "life begins at erection". But given Catholic premises, there's a legitimate difference between a fertilized and unfertilized egg.<br /><br />However, given different premises - for example, that subjectivity and agency are determining factors (again, a subject can be harmed, an object can only be damaged), then there can be a principled difference between a fetus that definitely cannot support consciousness (yet) and one that just might.<br /><br />More when I get a chance. I know I haven't addressed all your points yet.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41029648192120118612011-12-09T07:53:11.740-08:002011-12-09T07:53:11.740-08:00Alan:
"In the first comment
Daniel Smith said...Alan:<br />"In the first comment<br />Daniel Smith said...<br />Let the Dawkins-fanboi/gnu-troll onslaught begin!<br /><br />Seems your prediction was off the mark, Dan! :)"<br /><br />Daniel:<br />"Yes it was Alan. I've been pleasantly surprised by the lack of gnu-atheist trolls on this thread. It's unusual - they usually show up in droves when Dicky D. is criticized! Perhaps even they are too embarrassed to rush to his aid this time around?"<br /><br />010101:<br />"fuck the ancient theo-chitchat<br /><br />actions are louder than words: lets have one of the salesmen for Jeesus such as Craig produce a real miracle, in a public setting."<br /><br />TimLambert:<br />"Excellent"TimLambertnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18673422375302903642011-12-09T07:44:37.051-08:002011-12-09T07:44:37.051-08:00Things You Can't Do as a Moral Relativist:
...Things You Can't Do as a Moral Relativist:<br /><br /> 1. Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing<br /> 2. Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil<br /> 3. Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise<br /> 4. Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust<br /> 5. Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality<br /> 6. Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions<br /> 7. Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Toleranc<br /><br />8. The relativist can't complain about being mistreated.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62300140991954833672011-12-09T07:37:14.827-08:002011-12-09T07:37:14.827-08:00Anonymous said...
consciousness
[kon′shəs...Anonymous said...<br /><br /> consciousness<br /> [kon′shəsnes]<br /> a clear state of awareness of self and the environment in which attention is focused on immediate matters, as distinguished from mental activity of an unconscious or subconscious nature.<br /> Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.<br /><br /> December 9, 2011 6:40 AM"<br /><br /><br />That is a useful contribution, and medicine certainly provides practical insights into what most people mean by consciousness.<br /><br /><br />I don't however trust that those who try to found interpersonal moral obligations on the phenomena of consciousness, or sentience, really have a clear and distinct idea what it is that they supposedly mean.<br /><br />It's just a "move" they are engaging in. An attempt to abstract away from human life, to "something" that appears sufficiently universal as to provoke a respect reflex in a hearer, and which will provide both the freedom from condemnation and the personal protection that the player seeks for himself.<br /><br />The ploy of pretending that no human with a brain and short of dead is capable of actually being unconscious, is just silly. We all have had high school and college level biology classes and are aware that many homeostatic and metabolic functions are directed by the "brain", yet normally operate completely independently of the conscious will, and continue to do so with no willing or attentiveness at all.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69607501195828688532011-12-09T07:19:30.504-08:002011-12-09T07:19:30.504-08:00Ray Ingles said...
DNW - "Also the text ...Ray Ingles said...<br /><br /> DNW - "Also the text you provide above in single inverted commas, nowhere appears, in the exchange you linked to."<br /><br /> I put it in single-quotes because it wasn't a direct quote, more a summary. (It's like you want me to be arguing in bad faith. Could you at least do me the credit of assuming I'm an ignorant fool instead of a malicious deceiver?)<br /><br /> "Perhaps what you wished to argue is that atheists are never truly unconscious?"<br /><br /> Er... yeah, because (living) humans are never at zero consciousness.<br /><br /> More in my response to Mr. Bodie."<br /><br /><br />1 The "summary" you provided was of course misleading, since you tried to convert my reference to unconsciousness into sleep. Your jabber on that other site about "lucid dreaming" is dispositive of absolutely nothing. <br /><br />These observations are among the reasons I maneuvered you into reproducing some of what you had actually written there, here; and why I repeatedly kept placing back into the exchange the text you claimed to be addressing, while cutting it out when you thought you could gain some advantage by doing so.<br /><br />But you knew all that. And you knew where it would lead: to a refutation of your claim to have addressed the unconsciousness matter before.<br /><br />But you just couldn't help yourself, and that is why we find ourselves at this point.<br /><br />2. I don't want you to be arguing in bad faith, but you are. And your constant equivocations, trimming, and tactical editing clearly demonstrate it.<br /><br /><br />Finally, <br /><br /><br />A. I guess you aren't willing after all to be the first atheist materialist I've run across to admit that you personally have no objective or intrinsic right to life that anyone is morally bound to respect, and <br /><br />B. You don't intend to engage in a logical demonstration how the fact of consciousness entails that any given consciousness derives from that consciousness a right to continue to be conscious or to exist.<br /><br /><br />Can't say that I blame you for fleeing your task though. Since trying to argue your proposition rather than merely assert it, would back you into natural law territory, the derivation of values from facts, and quite possibly force you accept Feser's scholastic doctrine of the at least provisional convertibility of the terms "being" and "good".<br /><br />So, no Ray, I don't think you are arguing in good faith, and I believe that I have sufficiently demonstrated it through highlighting your own actions.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14363128226244212072011-12-09T07:08:40.975-08:002011-12-09T07:08:40.975-08:00Jack "Vaughn" Bodie - "(I almost sa...Jack "Vaughn" Bodie - <i>"(I almost said soul, but that would no doubt antagonize you!)"</i><br /><br />Soul's just a word. Heliocentrists can still use the word 'sunrise' even if they have a rather different understanding of the phenomenon than geocentrists. :)<br /><br />Gonna have to break up the response a bit. First, some relatively simpler points.<br /><br /><i>"Starting with your assertion that “[h]umans need a brain to be aware”, studies of consciousness in congenitally decorticate children would suggest that humans don’t need as much interconnected hardware as you seem to think."</i><br /><br />The fact that the brain can reorganize radically in the face of disruption doesn't mean that there isn't a typical and heavily-researched organization. People can retrain their brain to regain skills after a stroke. That doesn't mean people don't lose abilities after a stroke.<br /><br />Brains don't 'bootstrap' up in development the way one might think. They form in separate regions that slowly grow together and form interconnections. Radically different interconnections obviously can form in extraordinary circumstances... but they still have to form.<br /><br /><i>"I’m amazed that even though you conceive of a person as a “’process’” you see nothing wrong with prematurely ending that process because of your prior commitment to a heartless idea."</i><br /><br />For a tornado to form, you need a supercell. But not all supercells form tornadoes, and if the supercell is disrupted before the tornado forms, then there won't be a tornado. Embryological development is a process, too, and can be disrupted before consciousness forms/initiates/manifests.<br /><br />(Sometimes tornadoes form in the winter, or in unlikely circumstances - not unlike the consciousness seen in surprisingly-heavily-disrupted brains. That doesn't mean we can't identify some circumstances where tornadoes <i>won't</i> or <i>haven't</i> formed.)Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44994856346242180362011-12-09T06:40:35.136-08:002011-12-09T06:40:35.136-08:00consciousness
[kon′shəsnes]
a clear state of aware...consciousness<br />[kon′shəsnes]<br />a clear state of awareness of self and the environment in which attention is focused on immediate matters, as distinguished from mental activity of an unconscious or subconscious nature.<br />Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87528606021963909782011-12-09T06:27:36.886-08:002011-12-09T06:27:36.886-08:00(Thanks, BTW, for the well-wishes. It looks like m...(Thanks, BTW, for the well-wishes. It looks like my son will be fine in time, though he'll have a couple interesting - happily not disfiguring - scars.)Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21919511268455480862011-12-09T06:25:18.891-08:002011-12-09T06:25:18.891-08:00DNW - "Also the text you provide above in sin...DNW - <i>"Also the text you provide above in single inverted commas, nowhere appears, in the exchange you linked to."</i><br /><br />I put it in single-quotes <i>because</i> it wasn't a direct quote, more a summary. (It's like you <i>want</i> me to be arguing in bad faith. Could you at least do me the credit of assuming I'm an ignorant fool instead of a malicious deceiver?)<br /><br /><i>"Perhaps what you wished to argue is that atheists are never truly unconscious?"</i><br /><br />Er... yeah, because (living) humans are never at zero consciousness.<br /><br />More in my response to Mr. Bodie.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.com