Idealists: What does 'physical' mean to you?

[Dancing David]

Other scientists in consciousness research are actively doing experiments into psi and getting good results.

Like what, who, where, when and how.

data, protocols and papers please?

 

[Nick227]

The point is what theory is the stronger regarding the essence of phenomenal objects. Why are they there when, as modern physics has confirmed, they are nothing but information. What sustains them?

Well, one idea might be that natural selection dictates that we experience an "object orientated" world. The brain's sensory systems will have been created through evolution and so can be expected to render a phenomenology that best helps the organism to survive and replicate.

eta: relating to this it could of course be that our experience of the world is so driven by natural selection that actually we have no possibility to carry out meaningful science or philosophy.

Nick

 

[HypnoPsi]

Since I can't even objectively prove that anyone I know is conscious how can someone ever know a computer is?

By definining consciousness in terms of behavior rather than magic.

The question is how do you actually know any of it is true and not just pure fantasy?

Why should we describe consciousness by behaviour in the first place? If you think you've got consciousness all worked out then just go ahead and describe your minimal conscious system (Dennett's thermostat, perhaps?) and explain why this minimal amount of Information Processing is necessary in the first place.

You have to assume the existence of "psi" to begin with for the Ganzfeld experiments to suggest it. You haven't heard such criticisms before? I find that hard to believe.

Experiments like the Ganzfeld or Staring Experiment are testing whether or not testimonials about such things as telepathy or whatever are real or not. The data suggests that it is real, albeit at a fairly low and unreliable level. That's all.

So my answer to your criticism is - so what?

In particular, there is a much simpler and more credible explanation for such results -- since human minds are similar, they might have similar thoughts. As in, if you ask 1000 people what their favorite flavor of ice cream is, a statistically significant portion will report "chocolate." Do you also consider that evidence of "psi?"

Nope. And that is nowhere near a description of the randomised and controlled set up used in the Ganzfeld or staring experiments.

Why do you say that "all things experience"? And how do you get experierience without consciousness?

Because the only way my definition of experience can be non-contradictory is for all things to experience.

In otherwords, because you feel like it.

That's not an answer.

And experience is not equivalent to consciousness, or even dependent on consciousness. Were you "conscious" of all the little things you experienced while driving home from work on the freeway? Of course not. In my view, "consciousness" is simply the result of reasoning about experience.

What definition of belief? Would you say there is "experience" in the sense of some very rudimentary form of consciousness as the thermostat processes information about the ambient temperature in order to make a "decision".

I would not say it is conscious in the same self-aware sense as a human, because even if there is self-awareness (as in Pixy's 100 transistor machine) there isn't a sufficient level of reasoning going on.

What is "reasoning" to a computer/machine exactly?

What you seem to be saying here is that you do believe there is a very primitive form of consciousness in the thermostat. Why is that? And what do you think self-refrencing is in a machine that would make it more human-like?

~
HypnoPsi

 

[PixyMisa]

Like what, who, where, when and how.

data, protocols and papers please?

Maybe by "good" he means "consistently negative".

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[HypnoPsi]

You haven't explained how the universe works. You don't get to employ Occam yet. It's only simpler because it isn't an explanation. Surely you must see this by now.

Not in the slightest - and I certainly claim no special understanding for how Universe works.

My only point has been - and still remains - that theism is the better starting point to answer the question about existence than materialism or physicalism - however you define them.

I use the word substantial in the sense of:

1b : not imaginary or illusory : REAL, TRUE

I suppose the long and short of it is that I don't really buy this innocent sounding neutral way that you are describing things.

Either phenomenal reality is created or it's uncreated (meaning it has some property, essence or substance that is self-perpetuating and self-sustaining).

I don't claim to be able to solve any of the mysteries of existence whatsoever. I'm only pointing out that the belief in objective phenomena being somehow self-sustaining and self-perpetuating is predicated on absolutely nothing while God is predicated on the known existence of consciousness/mind.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[Nick227]

Nick, every part of that post made sense, and indeed, I agree with most of it. (I have a lot more confidence that science will explain all the details of consciousness, though.)

Since we've had some fairly strident disagreements in the past, I just wanted to say that.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Nick

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No... you're still not getting me with this whole memory lark of yours. I genuinely do not see where you're going with it. Okay, so God is really, really, clever with a big memory. So what?

Please read post #374 where I explained it.

I need do no such thing. In my schema God has created points of consciousness (souls, if you like) and phenomenal reality with a vital essence born of Him/Her/It.

Then you have taken the analogy from personal consciousness and extended it way past the point you can possibly support by your argument that "we know we are conscious."

I'm only pointing out that the belief in objective phenomena being somehow self-sustaining and self-perpetuating is predicated on absolutely nothing while God is predicated on the known existence of consciousness/mind.

Objective phenomena being self-sustaining is inferred from the fact that things remain consistent even when personal consciousness is not involved at all. Somehow you believe that (a) inferring a complex god by analogy from personal consciousness and then (b) injecting him in the world as the sustainer, is a simpler model. I don't get it.

~~ Paul

 

[PixyMisa]

The question is how do you actually know any of it is true and not just pure fantasy?

We don't.

But the moment we choose not to simply curl up in a corner and die, we have to make a choice of epistemological foundations. And only one choice works.

Why should we describe consciousness by behaviour in the first place?

Because we describe everything by behaviour.

If you think you've got consciousness all worked out then just go ahead and describe your minimal conscious system (Dennett's thermostat, perhaps?)

As I said, I don't consider Dennett's thermostat to be conscious, though I understand his point, and I've noted the minor elaboration I think is required.

and explain why this minimal amount of Information Processing is necessary in the first place.

Because consciousness is entirely about information processing. No information processing, no consciousness.

Experiments like the Ganzfeld or Staring Experiment are testing whether or not testimonials about such things as telepathy or whatever are real or not.

And the answer is "not".

The data suggests that it is real, albeit at a fairly low and unreliable level. That's all.

No, no it doesn't. The analysis of the data shows that the experimenters are not willing to accept negative results no matter how many times they get them.

Nope. And that is nowhere near a description of the randomised and controlled set up used in the Ganzfeld or staring experiments.

Name one Ganzfeld or staring experiment that was both properly controlled and produced statistically significant positive results.

Just one.

Please.

And experience is not equivalent to consciousness, or even dependent on consciousness. Were you "conscious" of all the little things you experienced while driving home from work on the freeway? Of course not. In my view, "consciousness" is simply the result of reasoning about experience.

Yeah, well, my phone does that.

What is "reasoning" to a computer/machine exactly?

It is the same as reasoning to a human being. Exactly.

What you seem to be saying here is that you do believe there is a very primitive form of consciousness in the thermostat.

Yes - or at least in a slightly more sophisticated but still very simple circuit.

Why is that?

Because it exhibits, in a simple form, all the activities that we see in human consciousness.

And what do you think self-refrencing is in a machine that would make it more human-like?

Because humans are self-referential.

 

[rocketdodger]

I disagree. Your own words above seem to suggest that you (like myself) do indeed believe there is a fundamental existent - even though you obviously recognise how difficult it is to discuss the subject.

The point I'm making here is that for atheists/materialists this fundamental existent that you think exists and manifests as objective phenomena (that which you call "matter") surely must be something self-perpetuating and self-generating (i.e. uncreated) due to "God" not being part of the equation for atheists.

Using words like "matter" and "physical" which obviously have a history only tells me that, even though modern physics has forced a shift in your thining (so that you very well probably do mean something very different by the terms than an 18th and 19th century scientist) you are still ultimately claiming the same thing.

As I see it that claim can be summed up as "matter" (whatever it ultimately is) is something that is believed to be self-perpetuating and self-generating - uncreated.

No. I see what your problem is now. You think you can escape incompleteness somehow, if only you think about it hard enough. And you think others must think this as well.

You are wrong. Real materialists, like Pixy, Paul, and myself (to list a few) fully accept that there is a hard limit to what we can know. Incompleteness proves it, plain and simple. And if you accept mathematics, you must accept incompleteness, because it is a mathematical fact.

When pixy says he does not believe in a fundamental existent that is self-generating and self-perpetuating, he means it. And the reason he doesn't believe in such a thing is because it is fundamentally unknowable to a human. Because the concept of "self-generation" or "self-perpetuation" isn't allowable in our mathematics. A human simply can't conceive of such a thing.

So you are only deluding yourself. You can't begin to fathom what "self-generating" must mean -- no human can. All you are doing is waving your hands and mumbling incantations when you claim God is self-generating and self-perpetuating.

If you want to claim that we should know the answers, that incompleteness shouldn't apply to our knowledge, then you would be swimming against entire history of human mathematics. Are you really that stubborn?

 

[rocketdodger]

The question is how do you actually know any of it is true and not just pure fantasy?

Why should we describe consciousness by behaviour in the first place? If you think you've got consciousness all worked out then just go ahead and describe your minimal conscious system (Dennett's thermostat, perhaps?) and explain why this minimal amount of Information Processing is necessary in the first place.

What is consciousness? If you are talking about human consciousness, then simply say human consciousness. And then the answer is easy -- the minimal amount of information processing is whatever leads to human behavior.

The point of describing a thing through behavior is that it avoids all the useless stupidity associated with arguments over substance. Kind of like this thread, ya know? If you would just accept that modern materialists think in terms of properties (behaviors) rather than substance you would have nothing to argue about.

Experiments like the Ganzfeld or Staring Experiment are testing whether or not testimonials about such things as telepathy or whatever are real or not. The data suggests that it is real, albeit at a fairly low and unreliable level. That's all.

So my answer to your criticism is - so what?

So what? "what" is that even if such experiments are credible, it is only evidence of something currently unknown. Maybe working neurons set up an EM field that other neurons can pick up on, who knows? The question is, if the results have a physical explanation -- such as an EM field -- are you going to still consider it "psi?" What exactly does "psi" mean?

If by "psi" you simply mean "unknown" then I agree, those experiments would be evidence of psi. But that would be a pretty weak definition.

Nope. And that is nowhere near a description of the randomised and controlled set up used in the Ganzfeld or staring experiments.

I know. But the point still stands -- the result simply suggests an unknown effect and claiming that this unknown effect is in fact the mythical "psi" is jumping to a huge conclusion.

In otherwords, because you feel like it.

That's not an answer.

That wasn't my answer. My answer was "because it makes things consistent."

Because as an A.I. programmer, I cannot for the life of me find a qualitative difference between what goes on in my mind and what I can make an A.I. do. And I don't like to give names to thresholds. Thus, everything experiences.

What is "reasoning" to a computer/machine exactly?

start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

more specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_chaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_chaining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network

What you seem to be saying here is that you do believe there is a very primitive form of consciousness in the thermostat. Why is that?

It features some conscious behaviors.

And what do you think self-refrencing is in a machine that would make it more human-like?

To start, knowledge about the relationships between itself and other entities in the world. Humans have a ton of that -- far more than any programmer has bothered to give any machine so far, or bothered to let any machine learn on its own.

 

[rocketdodger]

And experience is not equivalent to consciousness, or even dependent on consciousness. Were you "conscious" of all the little things you experienced while driving home from work on the freeway? Of course not. In my view, "consciousness" is simply the result of reasoning about experience.

Yeah, well, my phone does that.

That was my original statement. He forgot to quote it.

Didn't you wonder why it made a glimmer of sense?

 

[PixyMisa]

That was my original statement. He forgot to quote it.

Didn't you wonder why it made a glimmer of sense?

Ah. That explains it then.

 

[plumjam]

No, it isn't. I can recall some memories and poke them around in my consciousness for awhile, but my complete memory is certainly not in my consciousness. In fact, it isn't even reliable over time in whatever storage medium it is stored in.

I'm fine with you folks ragging on physicalism, but at least spend some time analyzing your own model. All you have in evidence before you is phenomenal consciousness. The mechanism of your memory is hidden.

~~ Paul

If memory doesn´t enter into your consciousness it´s not memory, is it. Simple really.

 

[Malerin]

Speaking of parsimony, I'm glad to see we're all using the commonly understood meaning of the term and not some made-up crap

Also, speaking parsimoniously, materialism/physicalism makes a huge assumption (nay, leap of faith) regarding consciousess. We are supposed to believe that reality is made up of physical stuff that takes up space and can be observed/weighed/measured/felt, etc. Ok, let's assume that's true. How is it then that a bunch of physical matter can be arranged in such a way as to create a completely non-physical phenemenon- consciousness? Does concsciousness take up space? How much does a consciousness weigh? How many joules does it put out? What does a consciousness look like or feel like? If you break apart consciousness in an atom smasher, what do the pieces look like? Consciousness has none of the properties that physical matter supposedly has. Why should there be anything like consciousness in a purely physical universe?

Consciouesness is totally outside the realm of physicality, and when materialists claim that consciousness comes from matter, they are creating a fairy tale much more unparsimonious than anything a theist can come up with. The theist at least knows the mind exists, and so their claim that God (as a sort of super-mind) exists at least rests on a foundation of mind, however shaky it may be.

The materialist is bereft of even the shakiest foundation. There is no evidence at all that physical matter exists, AND the idea that a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness) can arise from just putting pieces of matter together in the right way is more than a fairy tale, because even fairy tales are logically coherent. It is a completely ad-hoc non-sensical theory that the materialist must believe in order to keep the whole house-of-cards that is materialism from collapsing.

 

[Nick227]

The materialist is bereft of even the shakiest foundation. There is no evidence at all that physical matter exists, AND the idea that a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness) can arise from just putting pieces of matter together in the right way is more than a fairy tale, because even fairy tales are logically coherent. It is a completely ad-hoc non-sensical theory that the materialist must believe in order to keep the whole house-of-cards that is materialism from collapsing.

Having followed this thread pretty much from the beginning, and quite a few others like it, it seems to me that really it all comes down to one thing... ..Idealists object to anyone telling them they have to curtail their imagination.

A materialist might state that phenomena may be represented mathematically and that there are clear limits on what can be known. An idealist might state that phenomena may be represented mathematically and that there are clear limits on what can be known, but now I'm going to go off on a wild goose chase around the universe.

Idealists, do you feel threatened by creeping materialism? Does it threaten to curtail your wilder theories about creation?

Nick

 

[plumjam]

I don't think it matters what the underlying "stuff" is.

I find this a bizarre position. I thought we were supposed to be enquiring minds here, trying to understand reality. So it makes no difference at all to you whether the underlying fundamental reality is dead matter or Universal Consciousness?

You can't know it. I can't know it. None of us can know it. I'm fine with anyone who wants to call it God, Mind, whatever.

You are just assuming that it is not knowable. Based on what?
I have been arguing that millennia old traditions insistently tell us that it is knowable, via asensual direct experience. And these traditions prescribe practical systems of life and behaviour which move one towards that experience. People here tend to value practicality, so they should like that.
It is true that this kind of knowing is different from our usual modes of knowing. The latter are made up of parts and their interrelationships, and thus are amenable to language. The former is experience of The Whole and is therefore, in principle, indescribable.
This is exactly what one would expect from a philosophical point of view. It also happens to match with personal testimony of the experience.

What we can know is that thought exists. It is, however, an assumption to move from that epistemic statement that we know thought exists to the idea that thought is the primary existent on which everything is built. That requires a leap itself, so we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that the means by which epistemology is possible equals fundamental ontology.

(Just a nitpick. It is not thought, it is consciousness. Many of the practical systems I alluded to above have the express purpose of emptying consciousness of thoughts, stilling the mind. Thoughts come and go, are impermanent, and have nothing to do with our true nature.)
You make a good point, and I would agree with you if it were not for the evidence from throughout human history, across cultures, that the primary existent is indeed Universal Consciousness, and that it can be experienced. Indeed, the experience is why the whole of Creation was brought into play in the first place.

I'm afraid that radical doubt leaves us with radical doubt minus "thought exists (or thought happens)". If you can provide a means outside that state you would have produced a viable and interesting philosophy. Descartes' solution was to try and prove the existence of God, which isn't a particularly satisfying solution because his ontological proof doesn't work well enough to prove what he wanted.

Again, it´s not thought. I´ve always thought Descartes made a pretty basic blunder in that regard. Does our awareness cease to exist in the gaps between thoughts? To say we are our thoughts is like looking at a movie screen and saying we are the actor(s). We are the observer, the witness consciousness.
As to the proof of God, I tend to avoid such discussions. God either exists or does not, ..constructing a particularly clever argument is not going to move something from non existence over to existence, or vice versa. God is a matter of experience rather than argument, analysis or particular employments of reason.

 

[nescafe]

Also, speaking parsimoniously, materialism/physicalism makes a huge assumption (nay, leap of faith) regarding consciousess. We are supposed to believe that reality is made up of physical stuff that takes up space and can be observed/weighed/measured/felt, etc. Ok, let's assume that's true. How is it then that a bunch of physical matter can be arranged in such a way as to create a completely non-physical phenemenon- consciousness? Does concsciousness take up space? How much does a consciousness weigh? How many joules does it put out? What does a consciousness look like or feel like? If you break apart consciousness in an atom smasher, what do the pieces look like? Consciousness has none of the properties that physical matter supposedly has. Why should there be anything like consciousness in a purely physical universe?

From a materialist standpoint, consciousness is a process, not a thing. Ascribing the thing-like qualities you do to it is simply inane -- how much does running weigh, again?

Consciouesness is totally outside the realm of physicality, and when materialists claim that consciousness comes from matter, they are creating a fairy tale much more unparsimonious than anything a theist can come up with. The theist at least knows the mind exists, and so their claim that God (as a sort of super-mind) exists at least rests on a foundation of mind, however shaky it may be.

Since matter is capable of supporting universal processes (after all, we can build universal Turing machines out of matter, subject to the information-processing limits imposed by physics), I do not see any reason that matter cannot support the process we call consciousness.

The materialist is bereft of even the shakiest foundation. There is no evidence at all that physical matter exists, AND the idea that a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness) can arise from just putting pieces of matter together in the right way is more than a fairy tale, because even fairy tales are logically coherent. It is a completely ad-hoc non-sensical theory that the materialist must believe in order to keep the whole house-of-cards that is materialism from collapsing.

Nope.

 

[Malerin]

From a materialist standpoint, consciousness is a process, not a thing. Ascribing the thing-like qualities you do to it is simply inane -- how much does running weigh, again?

This is a cop-out materialists make to reduce consciouness to a triviality, and leads to bizzare claims that things like thermostats and calculators (or anything that carries out an informational "process") are consciouss. Concsciousness is much more than a "process". It is a subjective phenemenon that non of us can deny experiencing. It encompasses self-awareness and experience.

Let me give you a famous thought-experiment: a group of color-blind scientists spend years figuring out all the physical processes involved in seeing the color red. They know the physics involved, the neurochemistry, which parts of the brain interpret the signals... they discover everything there is to know physically about what it is to see red. All the "processes", as it were. The question is, is their knowledge on seeing the color red complete or are they missing something by being color-blind? Do they actually have to experience seeing red before they can close the book on it?

If you read everything there is to know about riding a bike, but have never actually done so, doesn't the kid next door, on his bike, have a better understanding of it? Of course. Nobody's knowledge of anything is complete until they experience it. You can memorize the most fabulous recipe and you won't have a clue what it actually is until you experience the taste of is.

It is easy to say that love, hate, joy, and all the other emotions we experience are "processes", but that completely ignores the experiential quality that is attached to everything we feel. To know of pheremones, cat scans, and biochemistry pales in comparison to actually experiencing "falling in love". The subjective quality of experience is so anathema to physicality, it prompts otherwise rational people to twist themselves in knots to deny the obvious.

 

[PixyMisa]

This is a cop-out materialists make to reduce consciouness to a triviality, and leads to bizzare claims that things like thermostats and calculators (or anything that carries out an informational "process") are consciouss. Concsciousness is much more than a "process". It is a subjective phenemenon that non of us can deny experiencing. It encompasses self-awareness and experience.

Yeah. So what? Self-awareness is a process. Experience is a process. All of them perfectly attributable to a variety of physical substrates.

Let me give you a famous thought-experiment: a group of color-blind scientists spend years figuring out all the physical processes involved in seeing the color red. They know the physics involved, the neurochemistry, which parts of the brain interpret the signals... they discover everything there is to know physically about what it is to see red. All the "processes", as it were. The question is, is their knowledge on seeing the color red complete or are they missing something by being color-blind? Do they actually have to experience seeing red before they can close the book on it?

If they know everything there is to know physically about what it is to see red, that includes complete knowledge of the experience of seeing red.

Because experience is a physical process.

Listen to the lectures, Malerin. They explain all this.

If you read everything there is to know about riding a bike, but have never actually done so, doesn't the kid next door, on his bike, have a better understanding of it?

No. Absolutely not.

You now know everything there is to know about riding a bike. The kid next door has some trivial practical experience.

Of course

not.

Nobody's knowledge of anything is complete until they experience it.

You just contradicted yourself.

You say on the one hand that you know everything there is to know about (seeing red, riding a bike). Then you turn around and say that your knowledge is incomplete.

This is absurd, even for an idealist.

You can memorize the most fabulous recipe and you won't have a clue what it actually is until you experience the taste of is.

Irrelevant. A recipe is just a recipe. It is not "everything there is to know about" something.

It is easy to say that love, hate, joy, and all the other emotions we experience are "processes", but that completely ignores the experiential quality that is attached to everything we feel.

That experiential quality? It's a process.

To know of pheremones, cat scans, and biochemistry pales in comparison to actually experiencing "falling in love".

If you're a bad poet, maybe. If you're a neuroscientist, not at all.

The subjective quality of experience is so anathema to physicality, it prompts otherwise rational people to twist themselves in knots to deny the obvious.

Computers - even very simple ones - have subjective experiences. We completely understand every part of the process by which those experiences are formed, and there they are. It is not only not anathema to physicality, it only makes sense when explained by physical processes.

 

[PixyMisa]

Also, speaking parsimoniously, materialism/physicalism makes a huge assumption (nay, leap of faith) regarding consciousess. We are supposed to believe that reality is made up of physical stuff that takes up space and can be observed/weighed/measured/felt, etc. Ok, let's assume that's true. How is it then that a bunch of physical matter can be arranged in such a way as to create a completely non-physical phenemenon- consciousness? Does concsciousness take up space? How much does a consciousness weigh? How many joules does it put out? What does a consciousness look like or feel like? If you break apart consciousness in an atom smasher, what do the pieces look like? Consciousness has none of the properties that physical matter supposedly has. Why should there be anything like consciousness in a purely physical universe?

Let's try that again:

Also, speaking parsimoniously, materialism/physicalism makes a huge assumption (nay, leap of faith) regarding music. We are supposed to believe that reality is made up of physical stuff that takes up space and can be observed/weighed/measured/felt, etc. Ok, let's assume that's true. How is it then that a bunch of physical matter can be arranged in such a way as to create a completely non-physical phenemenon- music? Does music take up space? How much does music weigh? How many joules does it put out? What does a music look like or feel like? If you break apart music in an atom smasher, what do the pieces look like? Music has none of the properties that physical matter supposedly has. Why should there be anything like music in a purely physical universe?

Consciouesness is totally outside the realm of physicality, and when materialists claim that consciousness comes from matter, they are creating a fairy tale much more unparsimonious than anything a theist can come up with. The theist at least knows the mind exists, and so their claim that God (as a sort of super-mind) exists at least rests on a foundation of mind, however shaky it may be.

The problem with this twofold: First, there is no problem once you grasp the fact that consciousness is a process and not an object; second, we know that consciousness comes from matter. The body of evidence for this is mind-bogglingly vast, as you would understand if you just listened to those lectures. Or read anything about psychology or neuroscience, instead of trolling the 'net for fiction about NDEs and failed parapsychology experiments.

The materialist is bereft of even the shakiest foundation. There is no evidence at all that physical matter exists

Fail.

I hit you repeatedly over the head with a bat.

What do you say to me? Do you say, "You have no evidence that physical matter exists"? Or do you say "Stop hitting me with that damn bat!"

AND the idea that a non-physical phenemenon (consciousness) can arise from just putting pieces of matter together in the right way is more than a fairy tale, because even fairy tales are logically coherent.

What problem is there with ascribing consciousness to physical causes? Be specific.

What evidence do you have for your claim that consciousness is non-physical? Be specific.

It is a completely ad-hoc non-sensical theory that the materialist must believe in order to keep the whole house-of-cards that is materialism from collapsing.

And yet, I can prove it to be true with the bluntest of blunt instruments.

I can make your consciousness vanish by striking you on the head. What does that do for all your arguments, Malerin? How is your God so easily defeated?