patrick.net

I love Penn's presentation of Einstein's question: "when you turn away is the tree still there?"

Based on my knowledge of trees, I believe the answer is yes, and so in my opinion the tree is truly still there.

But, if I wanted to confirm that opinion as a fact, I would need evidence, for example if I can still see its shadow.

This is the difference between facts and truth: the truth is what you believe it to be, but facts are what they are, whether you believe them or not. Sincere fundamentalists of religion or science can actually agree on that; they believe in the concept of a larger shared reality, even though they rely on different sources to (mis)understand certain aspects of it. (In theory, science differs from religion at every level, but in practice there is a lot of overlap: I believe we live in one of many spiral galaxies, because I trust the sources that tell me so; religious fundamentalists might believe we live at the center of a universe that revolves around us, because they believe sources that tell them so.) As Penn points out, his biggest objection is to people who assert that their own personal feelings trump objective reality. I think they set themselves up as deities; for example, marcus feels that the universe is whatever he feels it to be, thus deifying himself.

It makes sense because Jillette is in some sense (like The Amazing Randy, Hawking and the Myth Busters, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye) "preachers" of what is termed the Muted Group or Majority Reality.

But, starting with his own examples, the physicists of the early 20th century, some of their work added up to disproving Objective, or Provable Reality. You'd have to go back to back before Bertrand Russell and his failure to build a consistent, and comprehensive, logical proof of everything, to find people willing to state what Jillette is trying to state.

So, these Pop Sci masters have to have a fixed canon from which to expound. When things change, or theories shift, as they have been quite clearly since 2000 in the genetic sciences for example, well, they seem to not have kept up with the literature.

John Bailo says

Provable Reality.

If ever man is to cure cancer, it will be based on objective, verifiable reality.

By the same logic, art is trash.

In the past someone could say there are radio waves, someone might say prove it, the asserter would say can't.

In the past someone would say that someday man will fly, someone might say prove it, the asserter would say can't.

In the past Einstein said E = mc2 , someone might say prove it, Einstein would say can't.

Jillette is wrong on this point.

Heraclitusstudent says

By the same logic, art is trash.

Art is entertainment, and thus is wealth. It's like sports. If movie stars and professional athletes are overpaid, it is only because Americans value entertainment too highly.

However, when a movie star or athlete makes millions of dollars, it's not at your expense. This makes them completely unlike the financial parasites including
- bankers
- executives
- financial traders

When Goldman Sachs made billions, it did come out of your pocket.

So, no, your analysis is not correct, nor is it anything like mine.

Dan8267 says

If movie stars and professional athletes are overpaid, it is only because Americans value entertainment too highly

I used to think that. Now I think it is because tax rates are so low that the entertainers keep so much of the money that they WANT MORE. Before Reagan there was no point to increasing one's salary from $3M to $30M. You would maybe see 10% of the raise. Now they see 60% of it.

Penn just shouldn't worry his pretty little head about it.

Soak in brine overnight, smoke @ 150 for 16 hours....
the reality is in the vittles...

Dan8267 says

John Bailo says

Provable Reality.

If ever man is to cure cancer, it will be based on objective, verifiable reality.

right....
pail of popcorn at grocery store: $ 1.99
same product at movie theaters: $ 10 bucks
soda at grocery store: $ 1.00
soda at movie theaters: $ 4:00

those costs are directly related to movie distribution fees, priced high enough to overpay the entire industry.

Dan8267 says

However, when a movie star or athlete makes millions of dollars, it's not at your expense.

Those costs are voluntary. I don't remember voluntary to give $14 trillion to the bank bailout, and that caused actual currency debasement.

Government spending is determined by the electorate, who put their representatives in office to vote on making those decisions.

Your blind spot is thinking that government decisions equate to personal decisions, which they don't.

The country speaks as one living breathing organism, through their representatives. You are but one cell of that organism.

Dan8267 says

Those costs are voluntary. I don't remember voluntary to give $14 trillion to the bank bailout, and that caused actual currency debasement.

prodigy says

soda at grocery store: $ 1.00

soda at movie theaters: $ 4:00

those costs are directly related to movie distribution fees....

How so?

The price of soda at cinemas reflects people's willingness to overpay for it. Nobody forces you to buy it, but some people choose to buy it, and the price reflects what those people are willing to pay. If you are saying that people are willing to overpay for subsidized corn and subsidized corn syrup, and the profit enables cinemas to overpay for movie distribution fees, ok, but still nobody is forcing anyone to overpay for movies or movie stars.

Paying for the corn subsidies is mandatory, however, as is the overpriced medical insurance sector largely shifting the consequences of the corn syrup.

In the absence of mandates and subsidies, prices reflect supply and demand. If cinemas couldn't find corn syrup buyers at $4 a pail or whatever, the cinemas would either reduce the price or stop selling corn. You'd still be paying for it though, because you are required to subsidize the corn producers (ADM and Monsanto) and the morbidly obese corn syrup consumers, and the massively overpriced medical sector that enables the morbidly obese to continue fattening up on subsidized corn.

prodigy says

Government spending is determined by the electorate, who put their representatives in office to vote on making those decisions... The country speaks as one living breathing organism, through their representatives.

The "electorate" is constrained to choosing the lesser of two evils, and even then the choice can be overruled by gerrymandering and a sometimes partisan judiciary. In 2000, more voters nationwide and in Florida chose Al Gore than W, but five of W's party imposed his Presidency on everyone. In 2012, most voters chose Democrats for the House, but gerrymandering enabled Speaker Boehner to retain power. That doesn't even count the many people who are subject to taxation without representation, e.g. DC residents, and millions convicted of "crimes" in the "war on drugs" that aren't prescribed via the mandatory subsidized insurance system (where lobbyists get their cut at every step). The voters can fairly be blamed for their decisions, but blaming the country as a whole is unfairly blaming the victim.

People who buy over priced concessions needs their asses beat.
Because of them, those sandwiches, soda and beer will be 20% next year and not 20% less.

CaptainShuddup says

People who buy over priced concessions needs their asses beat.

Because of them, those sandwiches, soda and beer will be 20% next year and not 20% less.

Parents who give their kids money to buy those overpriced consessions, watch overpriced movies and buy the overpriced at ANY price crap hawked by celebreties defininatey need to have their asses beat!

Here's a tip mom and dad. If your kids are whining to buy something they saw on TV they're watching way too much TV.

My original contention was to rebute what "honey" said below.

Whether people choose to pay for something or not does not change the fact that movie theater food costs are directly related to what hollywood charges theaters to show their movies.

That cost varies by movie and chain, but usually averages 50% or more. If that average went down, say 10%, that would up the theater's profit by 20%. Theaters rarely have 'full houses', or even 50% full, for any given movie. The business model would dictate that they lower what they charge the public to fill up the seats, which would in the long run would give them more profit than they would have by just keeping the 20% increase.
The most obvious gouging going on at the theater are the food costs. Any competent CEO would see that lowering this cost and keeping ticket prices the same would draw out more people.
How many times have you heard someone complain about food costs in movies? For me, a lot. This is used as an excuse by some not to go at all but to just wait for the movie to come out on DVD.

So in the end, as you fork over that 10 bucks for a pail of popcorn you are contributing to the bloated megamillion dollar salaries that people get who just happen to look better than the average bear. If that is where you are going to direct your resources, you might as well follow Rin to canada and get something tangible in return.

You decide.

curious2 says

How so?

The price of soda at cinemas reflects people's willingness to overpay for it. Nobody forces you to buy it, but some people choose to buy it, and the price reflects what those people are willing to pay. If you are saying that people are willing to overpay for subsidized corn and subsidized corn syrup, and the profit enables cinemas to overpay for movie distribution fees, ok, but still nobody is forcing anyone to overpay for movies or movie stars.

prodigy says

Dan8267 says

However, when a movie star or athlete makes millions of dollars, it's not at your expense.

prodigy says

Government spending is determined by the electorate

Actually, the electorate is chosen by the government through gerrymandering as Curious explained.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

By the same logic, art is trash.

Art is entertainment, and thus is wealth. It's like sports.

The video you posted says:
-- "Once you've said you believe something you can't prove to someone else, you have completely walled yourself off from the world and you've essentially said no one can talk to you and you can talk to no one.
--"You've also given license to everybody else who feels that way. "

... and goes on to point out that you've allowed a justification for every evil.

Let me apply this to art.
So since beauty and emotions are not things that exist in the physical world and cannot therefore be objectively agreed on, the minute you agree beauty exists, and is a valid pursuit, you've given license to a bunch of crazy people to create modern art museums full of crappy pieces, some of which are just white rectangles with no other details. Crap.

Of course if you try to limit yourself to objective reality, you fully avoided that problem.

And you've also destroyed the value of art.

This is not a cheap shot, as I believe, as discussed, earlier the value of spirituality is purely psychological and created by the brain. As such it is not objective reality, and the fact that it is not doesn't mean it is worthless.

I think that pretty much destroys the argument presented in your video.

The counterpart to that is that I readily admit that there is nothing physical out there escaping physical laws - but just like beauty there are things (feelings) existing in the realm of human experience that don't exist in the physical world, and these things cannot be ignored as meaningless illusions or delusions.

prodigy says

How many times have you heard someone complain about food costs in movies?

Very few, I can't even remember the last time I heard that, but then I don't go to cinemas very often, especially with fat people who insist on eating the whole time. Remember, when you pay the high price for the food, you're also paying for the cleaning crew who have to clean up the spilled soda that stains the carpet. Besides, it's frankly ridiculous to say (without even bothering to link any sources at all) that a captive market would be charged less; it is wishful thinking on your part and contrary to all observable evidence. Any concession with a local monopoly, e.g. a cinema popcorn cart, charges more than stores that face competition. Airport food follows the same principle: the passengers are stuck there with no other food supply and not much to do, the gluttons will pay any price to keep eating, so the sellers charge what the market will bear. It is the reason why lobbyists pay politicians to require everyone to buy products from them, and restrict competition from outside: so they can charge more, not less.

Who said anything about the theaters charging less than the grocery store?

I said they could charge less than they are charging now if they did not have to pay average 50% of ticket price to movie distributors.

If they just marked up the popcorn 10% versus grocery store, ( 2.00 to 2.20 ) that would still be less than 400% than what they are charging now. ( 10.00 bucket ). For that matter if they only marked it up 100% to cover the cleaners, that would be 4 bucks versus 10 bucks, still a massive reduction.

I'm pretty sure this response destroys your entire post. Sorry!

curious2 says

Besides, it's frankly ridiculous to say (without even bothering to link any sources at all) that a captive market would be charged less; it is wishful thinking on your part and contrary to all observable evidence. Any concession with a local monopoly, e.g. a cinema popcorn cart, charges more than stores that face competition.

prodigy says

Who said anything about the theaters charging less than the grocery store?

You said cinemas would reduce "food" prices if the movie licensing cost less.

prodigy says

I'm pretty sure this response destroys your entire post.

No, it doesn't. You haven't provided any explanation why sellers would choose to reduce prices instead of increasing profits.

I find Penn Jillette condescending. Does that make him tolerant?

correct.
And that has nothing to do with your retort.

Besides, it's frankly ridiculous to say (without even bothering to link any sources at all) that a captive market would be charged less; it is wishful thinking on your part and contrary to all observable evidence. Any concession with a local monopoly, e.g. a cinema popcorn cart, charges more than stores that face competition

They can charge 400% less and still be more than the "face competition".

curious2 says

prodigy says

Who said anything about the theaters charging less than the grocery store?

You said cinemas would reduce "food" prices if the movie licensing cost less.

I believe that movie stars, popcorn, corrupt politicians and greedy bankers exist. I have also worked with Penn and found him to be smart, funny, an asshole, and real. He exists too.

As for Patnet and the characters who contribute to it -- I'm certain it is just my imagination, existing only in my twisted mind.

prodigy says

They can charge 400% less....

...in which case, the sellers would be paying customers $4 for every $1 of merchandise. Please, if you see any business operating this way online or within a reasonable distance from me, let me know. If it's anything other than toxic waste, I don't much care what they're selling, if they're going to pay me 4x the price just to take it off their hands. It would probably be a self-fulfilling "going out of business sale," or one of those website glitches. I have occasionally seen coupon/rebate deals where the final price ends up less than zero, i.e. more than 100% less than the retail price, but it's very rare.

Heraclitusstudent says

So since beauty and emotions are not things that exist in the physical world and cannot therefore be objectively agreed on

Did you pull that out of your ass? It has nothing to do with anything either Penn or I said.

Beauty is abstract concept. People who find things to be beautiful experience an emotion while looking at, listening to, or thinking about those things. Emotions exist as chemical reactions and firing neurons in the brain and have a very physical implementation that can be observed and manipulated and that obeys the laws of nature.

You have demonstrated the problem with artsy-fartsy statements by thinking that Penn and/or I was stating something that's neither of us would remotely say. And, of course, anything you base on these fantasy statements is wrong.

Heraclitusstudent says

earlier the value of spirituality is purely psychological and created by the brain

There is no such thing as "spiritual". When people, including yourself, use the term "spiritual" to describe something, you really mean emotional. Art doesn't give you a spiritual experience; it gives you an emotional one. Everything you experience when viewing the art is pure psychological and therefore physical and takes place within your brain. There is no supernatural element present. It doesn't matter how strong the emotion is or how much value you place into the experience.

To call any natural experience or entity "supernatural" is to denigrate the greatness of nature. I am in awe when I look into the cosmos. I need no god to justify that awe. The universe itself is spectacular; it needs no greater entity to inspire awe.

Heraclitusstudent says

As such it is not objective reality, and the fact that it is not doesn't mean it is worthless.

First, no one in this thread every said anything remotely like, a person's opinions and subjective experience are worthless. That's a Straw Man.

Second, the term "objective" reality does not mean the same thing as the word objective when talking about objective versus subjective experiences. A subjective experience is something like you eat ice cream and either like it or hate it. Objective reality is the nerves in your mouth, on your tongue, and in your nose send signals to your brain, and then some neurons fire and others don't. The objective reality is exactly what makes the subjective experience possible.

You are playing word games. In English, like in all languages, the meaning of words depends greatly on their context.

Heraclitusstudent says

I think that pretty much destroys the argument presented in your video.

You think that precisely because you do not understand what Penn Jillette was saying. Hopefully, now you have a better understanding.

Heraclitusstudent says

but just like beauty there are things (feelings) existing in the realm of human experience that don't exist in the physical world, and these things cannot be ignored as meaningless illusions or delusions.

So many levels of wrong...

1. Beauty, feelings, thoughts, and other human experiences DO exist in the physical world. If they didn't, you wouldn't experience them. You are an assemblage of atoms. Everything you experience is as physical as the atom.
2. No one has ever stated that human -- or non-human for that matter -- are meaningless or worthless. That's a Straw Man.
3. Illusions and delusions are also natural phenomenon with physical implementations that can be observed and understood. They may be really freaking complicated, but they can still be traced to the way the brain itself works, specific chemical reactions and specific firing or non-firing of neurons. There is nothing supernatural about illusions or delusions.

According to your logic,
if they did not charge 20 bucks per bucket, the sellers would be paying customers $8 for every $1 of merchandise.
if they did not charge 30 bucks per bucket, the sellers would be paying customers $12 for every $1 of merchandise.
if they did not charge 40 bucks per bucket, the sellers would be paying customers $16 for every $1 of merchandise.
etc etc etc....it's a no win for the sellers whatever they do...

The point is, the theaters could implement discounts if they did not have to pay actors 12 million per movie for reading a script and jerking off in front of the camera.

curious2 says

prodigy says

They can charge 400% less....

...in which case, the sellers would be paying customers $4 for every $1 of merchandise. Please, if you see any business operating this way online or within a reasonable distance from me, let me know.

prodigy says

The point is, the theaters could implement discounts if they did not have to pay actors 12 million per movie for reading a script and jerking off in front of the camera.

Sure, they could, but that's irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not they would.

Let's say all actors decide they are rich enough and they love the theater and agree to work for free from now on. They price of movie tickets or popcorn or anything else would not go down one bit.

First, the movie studios would pocket the money for their owners. This alone would prevent the movie theaters from changing their prices.

Second, let's say the movie studio owners are also struck by generosity unheard of in our species. So let's say they charge the movie theater nothing for showing movies. It's all free.

In this case, the movie theaters would simply pocket the profits. They would not lower the price of tickets or popcorn because the maximum revenue is achieved by the current prices, what the traffic will bear. This value is utterly independent of the costs of producing a good or service.

So basically, everyone who's in line to touch the pot of money has to be willing to forgo income to make the price lower. This never happens. So the only way to lower the price of movie tickets, popcorn, or anything else is for the traffic to stop bearing the current prices. When enough people do this, the owners will either stop production (highly unlikely as they are still making a killing) or take lower profit margins.

For better or worse, this is the entire basis of capitalism. Everybody acts greedily and those with the most bargaining power set the rules of the game.

Here's what I love about a big mouth like Penn Jillette.

Just what is his contribution to humanity? Humor mostly by making fun of stupid people and petty hucksters. For this he is amply rewarded with millions of dollars (and then he turns around and berates those less fortunate).

But consider what it takes to prop up a top feeder like Penn Jillette.

First of all his home base is Las Vegas.

Well, for it to exist they needed the dams built by unemployed immigrants working for the WPA. Then there's electricity. Same guys. Then there's all the construction. Yep.

Next there's the special liens and laws that make gambling possible. Then there's the hundreds of thousands of poorly paid gamblers who take their little bit of savings there to try and hit the big number.

These are the backs that a heavyset blowhard like Penn Jillette rides upon, ladling his "contribution" to all of mankind. Ride on Mr. Jillette, and fear the day that Yertle burps.

Your statement below does not hold water and pretty much blows up your entire post. You don't calculate in the increase of "traffic to bear" due to lower seat costs.

For example, if a movie theater has 100 seats per screen, @ $10 per seat, and averages 30% filled per movie, they would be taking in gross revenues of $300 per movie.

If they lowered ticket prices 20%, they would only have gross revenue of $240 per movie. They would have to attract another 8 customers to equal the current revenue of $300. That means 38 seats filled out of 100 versus 30 with the ability to generate up to $496 of extra revenue by more people coming to view the movies due to lower costs.

By doing nothing their averages remain the same.

There would be more "traffic to bear" due to lower ticket costs.

Dan8267 says

They would not lower the price of tickets or popcorn because the maximum revenue is achieved by the current prices, what the traffic will bear. This value is utterly independent of the costs of producing a good or service.

Dan8267 says

Beauty is abstract concept. [...] Emotions exist as chemical reactions and firing neurons in the brain and have a very physical implementation

Right. If you look at a car, you can agree with other people that the car is there, you can agree that is blue, you can touch it, etc... You can do no such thing with beauty. If you look a car and say it's beautiful. There is nothing physical standing there on the car that's called "beauty". It's all in your brain - not in the physical object you see beauty in.

That the brain in implemented physically is irrelevant here because the implementation will vary for each person and so each person will "beauty" somewhere else. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" they say. And it is.

As such beauty is not something objective. And I use the word "objective" quite precisely.

Dan8267 says

the term "objective" reality does not mean the same thing as the word objective when talking about objective versus subjective experiences.

Gibberish.
The definition of the word from dictionary.com "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: " I used it in that sense.

If someone is playing with words and making artsy-fartsy statements, it's you.

Dan8267 says

by thinking that Penn and/or I was stating something that's neither of us would remotely say.

I quoted exactly what he says:

-- "Once you've said you believe something you can't prove to someone else, you have completely walled yourself off from the world and you've essentially said no one can talk to you and you can talk to no one.
--"You've also given license to everybody else who feels that way. "

... and goes on to point out that you've allowed a justification for every evil.

You can't prove to anyone that something is beautiful so the same kind of reasoning could be applied to art exactly as I stated.

Dan8267 says

no one in this thread every said anything remotely like, a person's opinions and subjective experience are worthless. That's a Straw Man.

A straw man? Let me quote him again. You posted him, now you own him:

-- "My difference of opinion is with objective and subjective reality"
-- "Why can't Al Qaeda says 'I have a feeling in my heart that we need to kill these particular infidels'?
- "the problem is if you have a sense of fairness, simply by saying you believe in a higher power, because you believe in it, you've automatically given license to everyone else who wants to say that"
- "what we call tolerance is often just condescending. It's often saying 'Ok you believe what you want to believe'"

I think it is quite clear what he is saying: "these subjective beliefs are the source of this evil and therefore we should oppose them, and not opposing them head-on is just condescending."

The problem is what applies clearly to religion, also applies to beauty for the same reasons. By the same kind of reasoning we should all oppose all arts because some modern art is clearly crap.

So what remains of his position? Pretty much nothing.

Saying that by believing something subjective you give license to Al Qaeda to kill people is clearly throwing the baby with the bath water. It's a jump that doesn't make sense. And it's not a smart way to oppose religion.

To say that not opposing subjective beliefs is "condescending" is naive, because we all have subjective beliefs, starting with what is beautiful and what is not.

prodigy says

Your statement below does not hold water and pretty much blows up your entire post.

Did you not read the part you quoted?

They would not lower the price of tickets or popcorn because the maximum revenue is achieved by the current prices, what the traffic will bear. This value is utterly independent of the costs of producing a good or service.

Whatever price creates the greatest profit is the price the owners of movie studios and movie theaters are going to set. By definition, if they raise or lower that price, they get less profit. Since that rate, whatever the hell it is, is independent of the cost of the product, lowering the cost of the product won't change its price.

Do you really think that Tommy Bahama shirt you're wearing costs $140 to make or anything close? It costs the same as a $5 t-shirt. The only reason for the difference in price is what the traffic will bear.

Now you're free to argue that the movie theaters would make more money by lowering their prices and selling more, but you don't have to convince me. You have to convince them, and they have studied the price levels in exquisite detail because hundreds of millions of dollars of profit is on the line. So, if I were to make a bet, it would be that they, with all of their research, are right and you, with all of your armchair quarterbacking, are wrong.

Now if you want to argue that it's unfair that they can charge such high prices, then fine. You are entitled to that opinion. But unless you express that opinion by not buying their crap, then your opinion means nothing. As long as you continue to pay the price they demand, they will continue demanding it. That's capitalism. It's not fair, just, or efficient. The only thing capitalism does well is protect the owners.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's all in your brain - not in the physical object you see beauty in.

You're still missing the point. Your brain is a physical object. Nothing supernatural going on.

Heraclitusstudent says

That the brain in implemented physically is irrelevant here because the implementation will vary for each person and so each person will "beauty" somewhere else. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" they say. And it is.

Trite cliches are irrelevant. If you are making the argument that beauty is not entirely a natural phenomenon, but rather something supernatural, you are still wrong.

You have two pieces of paper. One piece has the word "pretty" written on it. The other piece has the word "ugly" written on it. The two papers have different states, but both states are natural, not supernatural.

You haven't actually said anything in all your ramblings.

Heraclitusstudent says

As such beauty is not something objective. And I use the word "objective" quite precisely.

And as I stated several times already, your use of the word "objective" has nothing to do with the concept of "objective reality" which is Penn was discussing and what you started discussing in the thread with the double-slit video.

As I stated, you are merely playing word games right now.

If you want to argue that two people can have different opinions on something, they you are arguing with yourself because no one has ever, in the entire history of the world, said that two people can't have different opinions. What the hell are you arguing about?

Seems to me that you are trying to deliberately confuse people into thinking that because the word "objective" has multiple meanings, the concept of objective reality is flawed because when you substituted the definition of objective that's intended with the one that's not, it becomes nonsensical.

For example, the word intercourse can mean either of the following
1. A verbal exchange especially of thoughts or ideas
2. Sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person

By definition 1, intercourse is not only appropriate, but expected among coworkers. I frequently intercourse with my male and female coworkers on a variety of matters. However, by definition 2, it starts to mean something completely different.

That kind on nonsensical nomenclature bullshit is exactly what you are doing here. You don't have any statement that you are willing to stand by that contradicts any statement I have made.

The problem with putting up with such nonsense is that it leaves room for the exact kind of ignorance and FUD that causes junk science to be used in courtrooms. And junk science is one of the greatest tragedies to happen to our legal system. People have spent lifetimes in prison and have even been executed for crimes they did not commit because of junk science. And the verbal masturbation you're performing is the underlying cause of junk science. That is why I find it intolerable.

Dan you're a slave to the physical. This is borne out in your constant harping on sexual fetishes. The FACT of the matter is that the brain works on a quantum level, by very definition combining matter and that which is not. Consciousness is a phenomenon which can only be measured indirectly. You should really read up on the newest science. Being stuck in the Victorian period of science isn't helping your reputation.

Quigley says

Dan you're a slave to the physical. This is borne out in your constant harping on sexual fetishes.

One, leave your mom out of this.

Quigley says

The FACT of the matter is that the brain works on a quantum level, by very definition combining matter and that which is not.

Two,

http://www.5BaOvM9jXKg

Consciousness, thoughts, and emotions are implemented at the chemical and cellular level, far above the scale of quantum mechanics.

Quigley says

Consciousness is a phenomenon which can only be measured indirectly.

Three, who the hell ever said consciousness is something that can be "measured"? What does that even mean? What are the units of consciousness?

I write sophisticated software every day. I don't measure software, but I know that it gets executed by hardware (even if running on a VM) and I understand exactly how that works. The fact that I don't have a yardstick for measuring software doesn't make it supernatural.

People who haven't actually built a brain should perhaps not claim to be experts on them. And yes, I've actually built brains. Part of neural networks in graduate school.

Dan8267 says

If you are making the argument that beauty is not entirely a natural phenomenon, but rather something supernatural, you are still wrong.

Who the hell said anything like that?

You look a car and think it's beautiful. Is there anything physical about the car that is called "beauty"? No there is not.
The beauty is not in the physical object you observe. It is created by your brain.

That the head is itself a physical mechanism is totally irrelevant to the point I made.
- This is not what you are looking at. You are looking at the car.
- This is not where you see beauty. You see beauty on the car.
- If other people are there looking at the car, they are not looking at your brain.
- Even if they could look at the brain and understand it perfectly, they would still not feel the beauty YOU feel.
- other people may or may not agree the car is beautiful because they have their own sense of what beauty is. By definition this makes beauty subjective, not objective.

It's unbelievable that when making such a trivial point someone would go in such a tangent as to answer "yeah but the brain is physical too". Are you able remotely able to follow a rational thought? Apparently not.

And when Jillette says the following:
-- "My difference of opinion is with objective and subjective reality"
I'm quite certain that God is subjective and, yes, beauty is also subjective reality, for the same reason that it is not something that will be easily agreed on by 2 different persons.

That's all there is to it.

Dan8267 says

There is no such thing as "spiritual". When people, including yourself, use the term "spiritual" to describe something, you really mean emotional.

Emotions are things like anger, frustration. Maybe if you take a very general definition of it, you can include sensations like hunger. With an even wider definition you could include perception of beauty. Only if you include every possible brain sensation you could maybe include "spiritual".

You wouldn't know anyway because it's quite obvious you never felt anything close to "spiritual". Your hyper-active left brain is too busy rationalizing to pay any attention to what your under-developed right brain is saying.