I Am Deceived, Therefore I Think

243 posts / 0 new
Last post
rat spit's picture
I Am Deceived, Therefore I Think

A simple challenge to any and all Atheists. Prove that your inner voice really is “you”.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

algebe's picture
@tar pits: Prove that your

@tar pits: Prove that your inner voice really is “you”.

OK. Did that. Any other challenges?

rat spit's picture
Communicate your findings

Communicate your findings using words on this platform for debate.

algebe's picture
@prat sit: Communicate your

@prat sit: Communicate your findings using words on this platform for debate.

There's nothing to debate. I asked my inner voice if it was me and I said yes. I took my word for it.

No further proof is possible or needed. My inner voice agrees with me.

LogicFTW's picture
And I hit the agree button on

And I hit the agree button on your typed out thought exchange you had with your inner voice!

Curious though what do you call "me" and what do you call inner voice?

*ominous x-files music*



▮          I am an atheist that always likes a good debate.          ▮
▮   Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me.    ▮
▮        Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016.      ▮

algebe's picture
@LogicFTW: *ominous x-files

@LogicFTW: *ominous x-files music*

The truth is in there.

rat spit's picture


So, you didn’t have to wait for an answer in this case?

algebe's picture
@rat spit: So, you didn’t

@rat spit: So, you didn’t have to wait for an answer in this case?

Nope. It came at the speed of thought.

arakish's picture
You never heard of the three

You never heard of the three of me?

I have me, myself, and I to talk with. Yes, it is me, myself, and I.

'Nuff said.


Rohan M.'s picture
The... Arakish Trinity??? I

The... Arakish Trinity??? I have the Rohan Duonity: Me and my conscience (my impulses and decision-making)

Nyarlathotep's picture
rat spit - Prove that your

rat spit - Prove that your inner voice really is “you”.

Prove you had breakfast this (or any other) morning.

rat spit's picture
I recall the taste of my

I recall the taste of my oatmeal.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Do you really think memory is

Do you think memory is proof?

rat spit's picture
Memory of a sensation is

Memory of a sensation is proof enough. There’s always room for skepticism, but I think if we’re following “true, justified beliefs” - I believe I tasted my oatmeal - the justification is my sense perception and memory of that - and the truth is an external reality which is bianary. Of course if you ask me what I ate two days ago and my memory fails me, then it does not count as proof. However in the present moment, I trust my senses.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Sounds like are you appealing

Sounds like are you appealing to particular theory of knowledge instead of a proof. If you think your memory of eating oatmeal is proof you ate oatmeal; then I'd suggest your bar of what you consider proof is very low.

Cognostic's picture
Here is an equivocation

Here is an equivocation fallacy if I ever heard on. Rat boy asserts Inner Voice and You, are somehow different, when in fact they are the exact same thing. Someone needs to go back to Buddha school and try again. There is no inner voice without a brain.

This is the ole Buddhist paradox, "You are not your thoughts." Because human beings have the ability to self observe this Buddhist paradox throws many linear Western thinkers for a loop. If you watch the mind, (pay attention to your thoughts) who is doing the observing. The fact of the matter is that both the observer and the observed and the observer observing the observed and so on and so on, is a function of the human brain,.

This is similar to Freud's Id, Ego, and Superego development. A child is instinctive and all id. He has no Ego functions. As he learns to interact with the world around him, he recognizes social interaction as important and begins incorporating rules and morality into his cognitive functioning. As he grows older, his impulses are stopped by the superego, the observer, and his gratification of both the id and the superego is carried out by the Ego.

Sorry Rat Boy, all you did was point to a natural function of the human brain. No mystical secrets here. If you think there are ..... prove it.

Here you go Rat Boy, you like Zen Koans, "What is the difference between a bird singing in a cage and a bird singing in a tree?"

rat spit's picture
Do you agree that each

Do you agree that each thought (you have) is accompanied by an impulse (beforehand)?

Rohan M.'s picture
There is actually no

There is actually no difference in between “impulse” and “thought”. An impulse (when you want to do or say something) is, by definition, a thought in itself. A thought that you, and you alone, have that inspired you do or say something. Can often be controlled by you also, e.g. “changing your mind” and instead wanting to do or say something else, or just not wanting to do/say anything whatsoever.

If you mean “impulse” as in nerve impulse, then you are describing a bodily process that governs not only every thought inside your head, but it also governs everything else that happens in your body for every second that you are alive. You are experiencing nerve impulses 24/7, even when asleep. And they are done by the nerve cells in your body, in the form of electric signals.

Cognostic's picture
Sam Harris assert "Free Will

Sam Harris assert "Free Will is a Myth." Modern tests demonstrate that an examiner can indicate whether a test subject will choose "Yes" or 'No" to a question before the subject can respond. They do this by reading the impulses in the brain. It does not change the function of the brain and no one can prove the impulse is not a part of the function of the brain. We are left with NOT KNOWING. Not some theory of WooWoo.

There is widespread agreement throughout the sciences that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and dreams. Scientists assert that if they could map every movement of every neuron throughout a person's life, they could predict that person's future. Regardless of this ability to read the brain before the body can act, a damaged brain can turn a peace loving human being into a raging murderer. A damaged brain can turn a normal person into a genius. Any change in the brain can result in changes to the personality, morals, behavior, and thinking. Regardless of what happens before the body can act, the brain and its chemistry appear to be the cause.

ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
I have to submit a research

I have to submit a research proposal in a few weeks. I was going to argue that consciousness functions as an inhibitor of decisions, not the generator of them. So in the study you presented my argument would have been that sure, the impulse is generated outside consciousness, but consciousness once aware of it can choose to inhibit it or let it pass, such that you are still making the decision. In your study there is no incentive to inhibit anything, you are asked to essentially "not think" just behave.

My professor told me thats a great concept, but unless I already know how to conduct studies with an fMRI machine and be specific in my paper, he's going to deduct points for anything I say that's not accurate. So, thats going out the window.

Cognostic's picture
I agree with your professor.

I agree with your professor. My own thoughts seem to follow a similar line. In effect we really don't know. I listen to Sam and I hear what he is saying. But just because there is an impulse before the body reacts does not mean something besides the brain in acting on the brain or in collusion with it or that it is not the brain itself. Fact is, We really don't know and we need better machines and better methods of inquiry to find out. The brain choosing impulses is interesting. I'm thinking more along the lines of chemical interactions as the brain grows. It works a bit like "set perception." Once something is recognize it has access and things that are not recognized must be repeated or learned in some way. I think of this going on, on the chemical level between the synapses and nerve endings. So like you said, some things are accepted or rejected based on familiarity or recognition and others are rejected. Still it's all play time. Sam is actually the Expert and so I will continue listening to his debates and look for new discoveries.

Rohan M.'s picture
I think that the “impulse” is

I think that the “impulse” is a thought in itself. For a more verbose and detailed explanation, please see my above comment, which is was a direct response to Rat spit’s question.

Sheldon's picture
Another specious argument

Another specious argument from ignorance fallacy, sigh.

Cognostic's picture
Rat Boy is engaged in a game

Rat Boy is engaged in a game of oneupmanship. He has resorted to Buddhist Koans and the latest research in physics and the brain to try and stump the atheists, Fact of the matter is; Atheists are just people who do not believe in God or gods. We happen to have a few scientists around here. I happen to know a hell of a lot about buddhism and I am up on some of the modern physics stuff because I enjoy Lawrence Krause and Same Harris.

Note that he poses his questions as a challenge. "Bet you can't answer this one." I think he is actually interested in Atheism. I think he actually respects and admires intelligence. I suspect that being Rat Spit and making a game out of his challenges (questions) is his way of interacting and trying to get close without admitting that he really wants to get close. He really does want to explore. He wants to try and understand but his religious leanings will not allow him to do so. By playing the game, he can explore without admitting to himself he is exploring.

rat spit's picture
I have rejection issues. It’s

I have rejection issues. It’s true. For example in my twenties the OverLord rejected me.

arakish's picture
Cognostic: "By playing the

Cognostic: "By playing the game, he can explore without admitting to himself he is exploring."

But it this not what every theist is doing, excepting a few like Senta Christine? They come here play their game and never hear from them again. Another one, whom I cannot call what he truly is without violating rules, is jnv3, a.k.a. J N Vanderbilt III.


Cognostic's picture
I would certainly but Mr.

I would certainly put Mr. Senta Christine in a similar category.

arakish's picture
And then there is the

And then there is the blustery one...


Rohan M.'s picture
Another drive-by theist that

Another drive-by theist that I’ve exchanged arguments with a couple of times is Mailman. He just keeps citing a bunch of baseless assertions from gotquestions.org (!) and then refusing to back them up, instead simply restating his claims over and over.

Sapporo's picture
rat spit: A simple challenge

rat spit: A simple challenge to any and all Atheists. Prove that your inner voice really is “you”.

Define what you mean by "your" and "you".

rat spit's picture
“Your” - belonging to you

“Your” - belonging to you
“You” - ownership of personage


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.