|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Atheism & Apologetics
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
que sais-je: In the sense that converting inputs to actions is meaningful I'd say there is meaning.
What is it that gives meaning to a machine that converts inputs to actions? An operator who interprets these inputs and actions.
I'm sorry, but like other people on this thread it is at this point that I find the atheists' dialogue intellectually dishonest.
There is no God? Fine. We have no free will? By all means. But if you believe that, then you have to go all the way.
For example, if you believe that there is no free will, then there is no real difference between the religious position and a 'scientist' position. Sure, our belief that there is a God may be false, but what's the difference between a machine that has an intermediate state that translates as 'false' and another machine that has an intermediate state that translate as 'true'? Why would it matter?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
LeRoc
Interesting argument. In fact, 'true' and 'false' are presumably predicated for abstract objects, such as propositions. Thus a physical object or an event cannot be true or false, can it?
But I suppose one can accept abstract objects, and still be an atheist, I am sure.
But as you say, without free will, I am not at liberty to prefer the true over the false, am I? In fact, terms such as 'I' and 'liberty' and 'prefer' become nonsense, and perhaps even 'evidence'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But as you say, without free will, I am not at liberty to prefer the true over the false, am I? In fact, terms such as 'I' and 'liberty' and 'prefer' become nonsense, and perhaps even 'evidence'.
Exactly, and the same with 'convincing someone'.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
'Tis often called 'having your materialist cake, and eating your metaphysics too'.
However, this is a bit unfair, since not all atheists are materialists or physicalists; it is perfectly possible to be a dualist and an atheist. For example, I think that Nagel is heading in that direction.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: it is perfectly possible to be a dualist and an atheist.
That might be true. With some of the atheists I've been discussing with on the Ship I've been having some difficulty in trying to establish whether they hold a dualist position or not.
In any case, I think that adopting a dualist position requires an amount of belief. Which doesn't make it that different from the theist position.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
[QB]
"If I believe free will is an illusion, I have three choices."
[QB]
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Oh my. I'd have been ejected from the premises for uncontrollable laughter.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: it is perfectly possible to be a dualist and an atheist.
That might be true. With some of the atheists I've been discussing with on the Ship I've been having some difficulty in trying to establish whether they hold a dualist position or not.
In any case, I think that adopting a dualist position requires an amount of belief. Which doesn't make it that different from the theist position.
I have certainly seen some atheists wriggle, when some of the consequences of their position are pointed out. I suppose there is an infinite flexibility in some of their thinking; for example, if a person or a self seems to be ruled out by a rigorous physicalism, hey, don't worry, we have recourse to a brilliant form of nominalism.
I recommend The OFloinn as a wicked pointer outer of these lacunae, although be warned, he is a right-wing Catholic, but very sharp.
http://tofspot.blogspot.co.uk/
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
For example, if you believe that there is no free will, then there is no real difference between the religious position and a 'scientist' position. Sure, our belief that there is a God may be false, but what's the difference between a machine that has an intermediate state that translates as 'false' and another machine that has an intermediate state that translate as 'true'? Why would it matter?
It depends what you mean by "matter". Five thousand years from now it won't matter a jot, but five minutes from now it might help the 'true' machine make better decisions than the 'false' one (for example, the former might decide not to persecute other machines just because they are set up a different way).
"Ah", you may say, "but why would it matter if those other machines are persecuted?" And again, five thousand years from now it won't. But right now, in the moment when it's happening, it matters an awful lot to them. And some of us machines appear to have been set up in such a way as to give a shit about the suffering of others, which means it also matters to us...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: five minutes from now it might help the 'true' machine make better decisions than the 'false' one
No, I'm sorry. This assumes that the second machine has a choice, an option that has already been ruled out by people who believe there is no free will.
quote:
Marvin the Martian: (for example, the former might decide not to persecute other machines just because they are set up a different way).
So what? A machine persecutes or even destroys another machine. Big deal.
quote:
Marvin the Martian: it matters an awful lot to them.
If there is no free will, then there is no 'them'.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: five minutes from now it might help the 'true' machine make better decisions than the 'false' one
No, I'm sorry. This assumes that the second machine has a choice, an option that has already been ruled out by people who believe there is no free will.
It does not imply a choice (in that sense) at all. All it implies is a change to the processing faculties of the machine such that the same input produces a different output.
quote:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: (for example, the former might decide not to persecute other machines just because they are set up a different way).
So what? A machine persecutes or even destroys another machine. Big deal.
quote:
Marvin the Martian: it matters an awful lot to them.
If there is no free will, then there is no 'them'.
Rubbish. The complexity of our machinery is more than sufficient to produce, well, us - even if, at the molecular level, it's ultimately nothing more than physics and chemistry.
It's this utter callousness on the part of theists that I don't understand. Like if there's no God then there's no point in love or compassion. Like if there's no God then everything that ever was or will be is completely pointless. I just don't understand it. A flower wilts and is gone after a few days, but does that fact diminish its beauty in the time that it is here? No! A majestic sunset is over in minutes, but does that mean I should consider it crap? Of course not!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: It does not imply a choice (in that sense) at all. All it implies is a change to the processing faculties of the machine such that the same input produces a different output.
What change? Both machines are just a part of a physical process playing out, any 'change' is already included in that.
quote:
Marvin the Martian: The complexity of our machinery is more than sufficient to produce, well, us - even if, at the molecular level, it's ultimately nothing more than physics and chemistry.
The position that the complexity of our brain produces 'us' is already a dualist position. That's not what we're discussing here. (And it is a position that requires belief.)
quote:
Marvin the Martian: Like if there's no God then there's no point in love or compassion.
I can believe very well that there is a point in love or compassion if their is no God. But I don't see their point if there is no free will. Love implies a choice, compassion implies a choice.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Is there any point if it's all just physics and chemistry? I mean the point is itself physics and chemistry.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose you have to have some kind of multi-level kind of reality, if everything is physics and chemistry.
Thus there is emergent stuff such as 'us' and 'love' and 'compassion', and even though these things are themselves made up of physics and chemistry, they are also something else, e.g. experience.
Is this correct?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What is it that gives meaning to a machine that converts inputs to actions? An operator who interprets these inputs and actions.
I'm struggling with how you use the word 'meaning'. When someone refers to the meaning of a word, I think of some alternative form of words which we can agree can be substituted. Alternatively an ostensive meaning can be given by pointing to an object and saying "that is what 'violin' means" (though since Wittgenstein we may be more cautious about that case).
I have a very deflationary view of meaning I am aware. If people stop at red lights I say they know the meaning of that input. If the behaviour of a machine on receiving inputs enables it to continue doing whatever it does, I'd say it knows the meaning of the input (i.e. that's my definition of meaning). It isn't everyone's definition but I'd say it is consistent with philosophical pragmatism from James onward.
I don't assume that the machine has some explicit objective, and certainly not one it could make explicit. 'Surviving' seems to be one most of us are born with, in some cases individually, in others in terms of a group or whatever.
quote:
I'm sorry, but like other people on this thread it is at this point that I find the atheists' dialogue intellectually dishonest.
Quite possibly. I don't think I'm being dishonest but 'I' is only a small - and possibly unimportant - part of what is answering. I'm aware of frequently having mutually inconsistent beliefs. I certainly don't think I'm being dishonest in the sense of consciously claiming to believe something I don't. Though that's no reason to assume my beliefs are compatible with yours or that mine are consistent or even true. I'm certainly not trying to persuade anyone of my view. Just saying it is how it seems to me.
quote:
.. but what's the difference between a machine that has an intermediate state that translates as 'false' and another machine that has an intermediate state that translate as 'true'? Why would it matter?
Does it? If it reduces your (or your groups) survival chances, it gives a sort of implicit advantage to those with a different intermediate state. I can't resist the obvious example: if you think you are attractive to potential sexual partners you may, in our world, do better than if know you aren't!
quote:
quetzalcoatl
But as you say, without free will, I am not at liberty to prefer the true over the false, am I? In fact, terms such as 'I' and 'liberty' and 'prefer' become nonsense, and perhaps even 'evidence'.
Well I am if that's what my sort of machine does. As for 'I' being nonsense, I wouldn't go that far. Daniel Dennett multiple rewritings maybe, 'I' is the process that establishes what has happened. I.e. whenever we think, lots of processes are triggered in the brain "It's a plane", "It's a bird", "It's Superman", in order to create a 'narrative' (an ordered, structured record that then can be used as the basis for future plans) one of the processes 'wins' and we go away thinking "It was superman". "I" has a part to play.
I've written more than enough. Will answer if questioned but otherwise I have a supper to cook and, later, vegetables to water. And maybe I'll get on with reading Thomas Merton. Or perhaps the winner of the 2012 Philosophy prize essay competition: "Truth deserves to be believed".
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Against my will, my prejudice, I like it quetzalcoatl. Peter Rollins has that affect on me. Just yesterday he shook my faith that matter, life and mind require the intervention of God. Before the only way they couldn´t for me was if there were no God.
How a bag of enzymes can be typing this I don´t know. That´s some emergent property of chemistry all right! But what´s the alternative? Years and years ago here (probably last week) I said vitalism, a mind field where the brain is a radio. Lousy, lousy metaphor. The signal and the noise are congruent, informationally the same. A self-perception field? I dunno.
This is what Pete said a couple of days ago:
quote:
the universe itself as an utterly immanent order making structure without ground
Miracles happen
Oooh and Marvin the Martian, spot on. Compassion is meaningful regardless of God. It is greater than God. And LeRoc. I like you mate, I really do, but how does something as meaningless as freewill null compassion?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
But I have a lot of sympathy with Martin's view in so far as I understand it. I picked up a book I'd bought for 50p a few days ago and opened it at random. It said:
" ... the one who can best point out our error, and help us to see it, is the adversary whom we wish to destroy. This is perhaps why we wish to destroy him. So, too, we can help him to see his error, and that is why he wants to destroy us. ... Love, love only, love of our deluded fellow man as he actually is, in his delusion and his sin: this alone can open the door to truth." Thomas Merton (Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander)
Another vote for Martin. I love his recent posts. (Maybe because I also love Koans?)
Great Merton quote by the way.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Le Roc
quote:
The position that the complexity of our brain produces 'us' is already a dualist position. That's not what we're discussing here.
Whoa, careful tiger, you are making an assertion well above our pay grade here. As I understand it, it only becomes dualist if there is no 1 to 1 mapping of brain states to mind states, ie there is some sort of emergence going on. And even then it isn't dualism in the sense I think you mean it, ie substance dualism, where there are different realms of existence, the physical and the mental/spiritual.
But we have talked about this before, nay recently, and I don't suppose either of us will change our minds/brain states ![[Smile]](smile.gif) any time soon.
But I want to ask you something. For you, it seems, free will is the key. If we don't have it, we have no meaningful existence. But what do you actually mean by free will, and how does your, presumably theistic account, actually work? You seem to be wedded to what the philosophers call libertarian free will, that is a free will that means our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by a god or the physical world. In that case, when I see a wallet stuffed with tenners in the road, what are the determining factors in my choosing between trousering it and handing it in? And how is the "I" doing the choosing more free in your account than in the materialist/naturalist account?
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
que sais-je: I'm struggling with how you use the word 'meaning'. When someone refers to the meaning of a word, I think of some alternative form of words which we can agree can be substituted.
When humans use the word 'meaning', it often has a deeper sense. Depending on your metaphysics, we have the idea or the illusion that what we do means something. When we help our neighbour, when we are in awe at the universe, or even when we refrain from oppressing non-believers, we think this means something. If all of this is just the result of molecules having reactions between them, for some of us this meaning is reduced.
quote:
que sais-je: I certainly don't think I'm being dishonest in the sense of consciously claiming to believe something I don't.
TBH, this wasn't really directed at you, but more to other people with whom I had discussions about this in the last couple of weeks. I don't agree with your position of "We are just machines, and 'meaning' is just substituting one a word for another", but at least it's intellectually honest.
I've been having discussions with people who deny that we have free will, but one post later they are presenting their life choices or their awe at observing the universe as if it means something. It is this that I find dishonest.
quote:
que sais-je: If it reduces your (or your groups) survival chances, it gives a sort of implicit advantage to those with a different intermediate state.
If we are going to use procreation as a way of evaluating belief vs. non-belief, then belief wins hands-down. Don't ask me for exact numbers, but I have no doubt that the believers in this world are producing more offspring than the non-believers. So, by the Darwinian argument, we shoud urge everyone to believe ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
And if we're going for attractiveness as a criterium, well, I'm a believer and I don't think I need to say any more.
quote:
que sais-je: 'I' is the process that establishes what has happened.
But 'I' thinks that it can influence what happens too.
quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: And LeRoc. I like you mate, I really do, but how does something as meaningless as freewill null compassion?
I love you too Martin, but I don't think you've read very well what I wrote here. I said that free will is necessary for compassion. If someone forces you to be compassionate, would you still call it compassion?
quote:
Grokesx: Whoa, careful tiger, you are making an assertion well above our pay grade here. As I understand it, it only becomes dualist if there is no 1 to 1 mapping of brain states to mind states, ie there is some sort of emergence going on. And even then it isn't dualism in the sense I think you mean it, ie substance dualism, where there are different realms of existence, the physical and the mental/spiritual.
My pay grade isn't very high, not figuratively and definitely not in the literal sense. Can you give an example of a non-dualist 'us' (or 'I')?
quote:
Grokesx: But what do you actually mean by free will, and how does your, presumably theistic account, actually work?
Obviously, we are influenced by what happens in our brains (these processes aren't there for nothing) and by the material and social stuff that happens in our world. But I happen to believe (and I can, because there is no scientific proof to the contrary) that there is something more: these processes don't completely determine our decisions but there is an 'I' that also influences them. And don't ask me how, but I believe this 'I' is connected with God.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
HughWillRidmee: I assume you are suggesting that my life is meaningless – it is perfectly possible to argue that it is and, indeed, why should/must it be meaningful except for human arrogance.
I wasn't talking about your life in particluar, it's just that if you believe in "no free will" then I don't see how anything we do can have meaning. And if you believe this to be true, then why are you discussing things with me?
I’m assuming that you consider “meaning” to be synonymous with “purpose” and trying to understand what you think should have meaning. Life, as the opposite of death, has, in itself, no purpose. On the other hands lives can have meaning in more than one way. Depends upon how you interpret "meaning" I suspect.
People and their actions have effects on other people and their environment. Such actions are (I suspect always) purpose-driven. To others, our purpose-driven (food, shelter, warmth, power, sex etc.) lives have meaning in the sense that they create change. Since the current theory seems to be that we interpret how others see and react to us as our “self” the loop is completed when we see our self-purpose as that which others see in us?
At another level - Perhaps we (human beings) are unable to prevent seeing noble, conscious, self-congratulatory meaning (purpose) in our actions even if there was only base unconscious decision. Perhaps we discuss things because we accept that the balance of nature and nurture inputs can be varied by additional data, leading to an irresistible change in output? It could be that we are incapable/frightened of physical combat and use SoF as a substitute to dissipate the insistent urgings of our hormones. Maybe we are just trying to clarify our own thoughts? Does it matter? There probably is an answer to every question but I'm never going to know most of the questions so not knowing some answers is hardly a show-stopper.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The evidence of at least some form of free will is as strong as the evidence for no free will.
I would appreciate you providing links/references to experimental evidence which supports your statement. If you wish I can find and re-supply the details of books previously mentioned which provide many references to experimental evidence which strongly suggest that what we usually call free will is a self-generated story. Are you throwing doubt on the techniques and/or interpretation of the claimed results? – if so do you have specific criticisms?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Can you give an example of a non-dualist 'us' (or 'I')?
I don't think I can add any more than I did the last time we talked about this.
quote:
And don't ask me how,
But I am asking you how. In the same way as you are asking others about how they reconcile non belief in a specific sort of free will (for the definitions are many and varied) with making choices in their lives. And I think I am quite justified in doing so in the face of your accusations of intellectual dishonesty with those you disagree with.
As far as I can see, when you say:
quote:
...these processes don't completely determine our decisions but there is an 'I' that also influences them. And don't ask me how, but I believe this 'I' is connected with God...
I can't see how a connection with God makes the "I" any more of a free agent than it would have been if it were simply the result of genes, brain, experience and environment. In my example, if I decided to hand the wallet in, presumably the decision would be Godly inspired. So I couldn't take any credit for it. I've seen plenty of that type of talk on the Ship, and it doesn't imply free choice at all in the sense you are demanding from us meat machine theory adherents. If I go the other way, who is responsible then? Satan tempting me? Man's fallen nature? That's a transference of responsibility no more philosophically satisfactory than the transference to genes/brain etc as far as I can see.
Edited for typo.
[ 27. July 2013, 23:02: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
As far as I can see, when you say:
quote:
...these processes don't completely determine our decisions but there is an 'I' that also influences them. And don't ask me how, but I believe this 'I' is connected with God...
I can't see how a connection with God makes the "I" any more of a free agent than it would have been if it were simply the result of genes, brain, experience and environment. In my example, if I decided to hand the wallet in, presumably the decision would be Godly inspired. So I couldn't take any credit for it.
I don't think those of us on the theistic side have been talking about how belief in a deity might influence our choices (though I'd point out here that influencing is not synonymous with determining). Certainly I've been talking about what might simply make the act of choosing possible in anything but a determined, mechanistic sense. I prefer to speak of "will" rather than "free will", because I can't attach any meaning to "will" unless it involves a choice made that is undetermined in that it could have been otherwise, and yet is not a consequence of random indeterminacy.
Now that would be a very strange thing. It does seem to require the existence of a self-conscious "I" that is free of the mechanistic determinism implied by the notion of ourselves as meat-machines. And yet it does seem that our lives require us to behave as though we make such acts of will all the time. I wouldn't accuse determinists of dishonesty, but it does seem to me that they're having a rather confused and schizoid time of it.
And as I said upthread, that could be just how it is. Evolution doesn't require anything more than determinism, our earliest ancestors were too busy surviving for these questions to arise. It was perhaps only when a few had the leisure to sit under a tree with a fig and a glass of wine and ponder the strangeness of existence that they would occur to anyone. But once arisen, such questions have to be addressed.
This wilful "I", if that is what we are, is a very strange and unaccountable thing - unlikely to have arisen through the process of evolution which I am convinced is a full account of our existence as a species, and yet necessary to presume if we are to avoid that schizoid state. My theism began as a hypothesis whose assumption might (only might) deliver this, though over years it has moved way beyond that. But that's really what it is. If I'm wrong, it's of no consequence, because then I don't exist in any manner that could interest me. In the end, it's a way of perceiving life that can include our "doing" anything at all, not merely "occurring".
Someone made a point that a deity's behaviour would be as determined as ours. A story occurred to me (shut up Peter, don't give away a likely plot!) in which such a deity, frustrated by this, "wanted" (you see how these terms become redundant, except perhaps in the most reductionist terms?) to create undetermined beings. And then, there's a university (in America, I forget which one) researching whether the universe might be a simulation. Maybe our "god" is an adolescent in another reality, obsessively playing Sim Cosmos. Better hope a frustrated parent doesn't (as I have more than once) pull the plug out of the wall.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: I don't think I can add any more than I did the last time we talked about this.
And the last time we talked about this, I gave a reaction
quote:
Grokesx: But I am asking you how. (...) And I think I am quite justified in doing so in the face of your accusations of intellectual dishonesty with those you disagree with.
You're entitled to ask me how of course. But my 'accusation' of intellectual dishonesty is not because I disagree with some people, but because there is a blatant contradiction in their position.
Some people I'm having discussions with about this subject (also on the other thread you mentioned) assert that there is no free will, that the idea that we make choices (or even that there is a 'we' who makes choices) is an illusion, that everything is caused by the electro-chemical processes in our brain (which are either completely determined or allow for some quantum randomness, it doesn't make much difference in the end).
Yet the same people are talking quite vehemently on the Ship —and even on the same thread— that our religiousness is unscientific, an illusion, or even a delusion, in a way that suggests rather clearly that they'd like us to change our mind about this.
Now, I don't mind if someone tries to get me off my faith. Both my faith and my personality are quite strong enough for me to be upset by this. But there is a contradiction in this position, perhaps even more than one.
The first is that they seem to want to change something: this Universe is now such that it has a believing LeRoc in it, and they wish to change it such that it will have a non-believing LeRoc in it.
Surely there is a choice or a decision in there somewhere (either from their side or from mine). A purpose even: they seem to think that if they'll manage to convince me, it will make some kind of difference. This doesn't square with a Universe that is either deterministic or that only allows for quantum randomness.
In fact, they even speak about this in such a way that all of this seems to have meaning to them. Yet, the same people deny that there is something like a choice, a purpose or meaning.
There are other contradictions too. For example, they seem quite happy with the idea that whenever we think that we are making decisions, this is an illusion. Yet, they actively oppose the illusion (as they call it) of religion. Why is one kind of illusion ok, while the other kind isn't?
And I ask again: what difference would it make to a Universe without free will whether I'm religious or not? I assure you —pinky swear— that I'm not in the business of oppressing people (and I'm still not convinced that it would make a difference in such a Universe if I were).
So, if people want to believe that we have no free will, then that's ok by me. I just don't see, given this premise, why they'd want to convince others of it. (Que sais-je isn't doing this, but others are).
quote:
Grokesx: I can't see how a connection with God makes the "I" any more of a free agent than it would have been if it were simply the result of genes, brain, experience and environment.
I believe that besides matter, forces and natural laws there is a creative force in the Universe¹ which I call 'God'. The genes, the brain, the experience and the environment are all there, but there is something more. This something more isn't God making my decisions for me, but a creative force enabling that there is an 'I' who can make these decisions.
Now, how He does that, I really have no idea. I guess if I knew the answer to that, it would mean that I were God. And I can assure you, in spite of some evidence to the contrary, that I'm not.
So, when I find a wallet in the street (after I've checked that there isn't a string attached to it and a couple of children behind a bush ) everything comes into play: my genes, my brain, my experience, my environment... But they don't completely determine my decision. They all influence my 'I', but I can still decide where I'll go with all these influences.
So, in the end the responsibility lies with me. And God is watching, I'm sure.
¹ My words 'besides' and 'in' aren't entirely accurate here. I mostly think about the relationship between God and the Universe in a panentheistic way.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I´m sure you did LeRoc. You are being positively Descartesian. Which can only play to a draw here. Which, as ever, plays to a false dichotomy.
There is chaos for sure.
And, er, compassion cannot be willed. According to the Judeo-Christian source library and indeed whole narrative, none are clean, none are sinless, none do good. Which is remarkably deterministic.
Compassion comes by suffering, by exposure, by confrontation.
Inevitably.
Let´s hope.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Hugh,
You make it dueced difficult to quote you, especially on my phone.
I will get links soon as I get a chance.
What I do say about the experiments on both sides of the issue is that they are a bit simple to carry such conclusions. This is of necessity, but the extrapolations are stretched.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You got me on a roll here LeRoc. A rocky one for sure.
The source of compassion is God, who has no free will. Love loves. On the incarnation thread another false dichotomy is raised: because we are not THE hypostatic union we are not ... made in the image of God? From the breath of God, the mind of God, God? Made from? Made of?
Love.
Our need for compassion, to be loved and to love is innate, contingent.
Where is choice? (Did Satan have it? Adam and Eve? Judas?)
In the apostle Paul was helpless determinism - nature - to do the wrong thing.
(Satan never experienced that sense, or if he did it curdled instantly. Adam and Eve? Judas?)
In legalism, in being creedally, doctrinally and even behaviourally perfect, our hearts are benighted.
That is determinism.
Wow. I´m just wallopped round the ear ´ole there. I´ve bought in to the social gospel big time. And I´m frustrated ... sweet ... and bitter.
See?
Only God can will creation, against its will, despite its need, to love.
Chaos is creation, ineffable sensitivity to initial conditions, all going inevitably, Sisypheanly, ´freely´ down before it can go up, above, transcend, be transcended, along an infinity of paths via the same sink.
And one Will up.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Having read through page 3 several times, I'd just like to make a few comments..
I wonder if I'm a dualist. A quick glance at even the opening section on the subject in wikipedia fails to help! I think only a long study of Philosophy would - and it's too late for that. I do know, with a certainty that admits of only a vanishingly small possibility that any god will ever be proved, that I am an atheist.
If dualism requires 'a certain amount of belief' (LeRoc) then that would seem to be in free will. However, I don't think I 'believe in' it, I know what free will is thought to be, know that our human species acts on it, and that it is a totally integrated part of us, whatever we choose to call it.
I see no difficulty in the fact that everything that is, and that we are, is as a result of evolution. and that adding in an idea of a god caused unnecessary complications right from the start of our species, but because of how we evolved, it was inevitable!
I tend to nod in agreement with the atheist posts of course, but do so enjoy reading all these discussions.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Deleted - posted twice by mistake.
[ 28. July 2013, 08:30: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
LeRoc is on a roll - good stuff.
If there is no free will, then there is no I. If there is no I, then there is no 'my life' or 'my mind' or 'my anything'.
So, if you really believe that, this should produce an interesting version of existence! You have been in effect, depersonalized, sorry, I forgot, there is no you. Fundamental particles rule OK!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Is that false dichotomy directed at ME oh wing-ed serpent?! At the decohered superposition of wave functions typing at you?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If there is no free will, then there is no I. If there is no I, then there is no 'my life' or 'my mind' or 'my anything'.
I don't understand! Do you mean that without free will there is, as it were, no transcendentally free 'I' somehow unconstrained by deterministic laws though not random.
quote:
So, if you really believe that, this should produce an interesting version of existence!
Buddhists call it Anatta and would agree with you that it is an interesting version of existence.
But then the Buddha might also say what's this got to do "Atheism & Apologetics"? I'm sure you know the parables, burning houses, poisoned arrows, that sort of thing.
The OP seemed to me more interesting.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Is that false dichotomy directed at ME oh wing-ed serpent?! At the decohered superposition of wave functions typing at you?
Oh fabulous array of fermions and bosons, don't be silly, there is no ME, so hence forth I* will have to refer to 'you' as Monsieur Fermion-and-boson.
*where 'I' refers to another fabulous array of f and b. Let's mingle! (Where 's refers to another f a of f and b, and 'let' is pure superstition (where 'superstition' is more superstition)).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Mutter, mutter. Being hoist with me own petard here more ways than one methinks.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Switch off, tune in, turn on, glide away, swoon, love loves itself in another ...
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Buddhists call it Anatta and would agree with you that it is an interesting version of existence.
But then the Buddha might also say what's this got to do "Atheism & Apologetics"? I'm sure you know the parables, burning houses, poisoned arrows, that sort of thing.
The OP seemed to me more interesting.
For me the best expression of this "interesting version of existence" is the Heart Sutra
Quote:
"no suffering , no source , no relief, no path;
no knowledge, no attainment and no non-attainment.
Therefore , Shariputra, without attainment bodhisattvas take refuge in Prajnaparamita and live without walls of the mind.
Without walls of the mind and thus without fears, they see through delusions and finally nirvana." (Red Pine translation from Chinese)
Maybe "purpose" and "meaning" and "I" could get in the way of what is important? In my previous comment I was going to mention the poisoned arrow parable. Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta against apologetics. Because looking at what might unite us , Atheists and believers, instead of what divides us might be more productive. But endless arguments about what divides us can be fun.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: Compassion comes by suffering, by exposure, by confrontation.
Inevitably.
Let´s hope.
Good stuff here. Yes, I agree with you. Knowing suffering yourself is definitely one of the ingredients of being able to have compassion with others. The Theopaschite heretic in me believes that this is one of the reasons why God died for us on the Cross.
So, let's take someone who has suffered, or is still suffering. People with more power are pushing him down, oppressing him, stepping upon him. To me, this person has a couple of options, among which the most important are perhaps:- He tries to find someone weaker than him, and starts pushing that person down himself.
- He has compassion with others who are suffering too. "I didn't like it when this happened to me, so I wouldn't want this to happen to others either."
Option 1 seems an obvious choice. I've seen it all to often: the boss abuses his employee, the employee abuses his wife and children, the children abuse the dog...
To me, choosing option 2 takes an act of will.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Very interesting points, LeRoc. I used to face this a lot in clients (in therapy), and it seemed quite mysterious, how one person who had suffered a lot and maybe had been abused, was broken and remended by it, and could empathize with others; but someone else, became bitter, and wanted vengeance on others.
An act of will? Not sure.
But also, 1 could become 2. I mean that I knew people who were embittered and wanted vengeance, but they broke through that, as they realized how self-destructive it is.
It's partly the repetition - if you have had an abusive relationship 8 times, you might stop and think. But some people go on to the 9th. Partly to do with unconsciousness - but what determines that?
[ 28. July 2013, 16:44: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Knowing suffering yourself is definitely one of the ingredients of being able to have compassion with others.
Agreed as a possible ingredient but it may not be vital
Mirror neurons
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I parry your thrust, Sir!
Both require will.
I fail to see any superiority, innate righteousness in the person who ´chooses´ good.
They are luckier.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@LeRoc and a bit @Quetz
quote:
And the last time we talked about this, I gave a reaction
Which, IIRC, was that my position required an explanation. Something that apparently does not apply to yours.
quote:
Some people I'm having discussions with about this subject (also on the other thread you mentioned) assert that there is no free will, that the idea that we make choices (or even that there is a 'we' who makes choices) is an illusion, that everything is caused by the electro-chemical processes in our brain (which are either completely determined or allow for some quantum randomness, it doesn't make much difference in the end).
Obviously I can't comment on conversations you've had elsewhere, but I've looked back at the other thread and I don't see it the same way as you do. What you call a contradiction, I see as other people not accepting your reasoning. For instance, your assertion that if the mind is solely determined by the processes in the brain, then the self, emotions etc don't actually exist is not a self evident truth, it requires more than ever increasingly exasperated repetition followed by accusations of intellectual dishonesty to support it.
quote:
So, if people want to believe that we have no free will, then that's ok by me. I just don't see, given this premise, why they'd want to convince others of it.
They have no choice ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Look, you know full well that the free will debate has been rumbling on for centuries and will probably rumble on for centuries more. As in much philosophy, it can be an exercise in definitions – word jugglery is not confined to the compatibilist position - but definitions are important when people make sweeping statements like, “If there is no free will, there is no ‘I’”. If they ain’t clear about what they mean by free will, and “I”, then the statement is just word salad.
And I know I keep urging you to read stuff, but before you go off on one again you should really get up to speed on the modern discussions. Pretty much all discussion of free will in philosophy these days is from a materialist standpoint, and the eliminative, "Free will is an illusion" is by no means a dominant position.
Maybe when someone does say, “Free will is an illusion” you could ask them what they mean by it. Depending on the answer, you might get a more fruitful discussion or confirmation that they are talking out of their arses.
And if you haven’t already done so, check out Lil Buddha’s link. Although there is no woo like quantum woo, that all looks like solid stuff to me.
quote:
This something more isn't God making my decisions for me, but a creative force enabling that there is an 'I' who can make these decisions.
But that creative force would just be another thing that is not you that goes into making you. I can see no logical difference between that ensemble and one where the creative force is left out, as far as free agency is concerned.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: Something that apparently does not apply to yours.
You made an unclear post on the other thread, I asked for an explanation, and you walked away from the thread. On this thread you referred back to the same unclear post you made, and I'm simply asking for an explanation again. So far, I've answered every time you've asked me for an explanation.
quote:
Grokesx: What you call a contradiction, I see as other people not accepting your reasoning.
I called a contradiction, and I explained where the contradiction lies. Not replying to my explanation of where the contradiction lies, and just saying "You call it a contradiction because other people don't accept your reasoning" instead is poor arguing.
quote:
Grokesx: For instance, your assertion that if the mind is solely determined by the processes in the brain, then the self, emotions etc don't actually exist is not a self evident truth
I already acknowledged that, repeatedly. Under some forms of dualism, there is an 'I' even if the mind is solely determined by the processes in the brain. However, this 'I' deceives itself (or is deceived) into thinking that it is it that is making decisions.
I am well aware that there are different forms of dualism, and ways of thinking about the relationship between the processes in the brain and 'I'. In fact, part of my discussions with people like HughWillRidmee and SusanDoris was trying to find out if there was any theory they preferred, so that we could discuss it further. However, they seem to switch between materialism and different forms of dualism so often, that it is often difficult to follow them.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: But that creative force would just be another thing that is not you that goes into making you. I can see no logical difference between that ensemble and one where the creative force is left out, as far as free agency is concerned.
In materialist models, the electro-chemical processes in my brain make the decisions. In my theist model, God created an 'I' that goes beyond the material things in my brain. It is this I that makes the decisions. The difference is clear.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
In materialist models, the electro-chemical processes in my brain make the decisions.
No, no, no, a thousand times no. In materialist models - apart from eliminative models - the electro-chemical processes of the brain give rise to the "you" that makes the decisions.
[ 29. July 2013, 21:15: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: No, no, no, a thousand times no. In materialist models - apart from eliminative models - the electro-chemical processes of the brain give rise to the "you" that makes the decisions.
Yes, in some models. In this case my argument is: Science isn't able to explain how we get from electro-chemical processes to a conscious 'you' without either pulling rabbits out of a hat or resorting to wishful thinking.
Furthermore, when we get to a 'you', there are various theories. I'm trying to summarize the most important ones here:- The actions of the 'you' are already completely determined by the electro-chemical processes in the brain. In this case, the fact that the 'you' thinks it is making decisions, is an illusion.
- The actions of the 'you' aren't completely determined because the chemical processes in the brain allow for quantum randomness. In this case, the fact that the 'you' thinks it is making decisions, is also an illusion.
- From the electro-chemical processes in the brain somehow emerges a 'you' that can make decisions for itself. Also pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
Mind you, I have no problem if you pull rabbits about a hat to explain to yourself how the mind works. But if you get to pull your rabbit out of a hat, then I get to pull mine. (And mine is prettier )
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
However, they seem to switch between materialism and different forms of dualism so often, that it is often difficult to follow them.
No, they are not switching, you are not understanding what the different forms of dualism actually entail. As I tried to explain repeatedly, the various kinds of property dualisms are 100% materialistic positions.
As Martin pointed out in his elliptical way (he has flagged up other areas, too, although he is far too sensible to get involved in pointless arguing about them), your concept of dualism is the Cartesian one, which virtually no one bothers to defend these days.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: As Martin pointed out in his elliptical way (he has flagged up other areas, too, although he is far too sensible to get involved in pointless arguing about them), your concept of dualism is the Cartesian one, which virtually no one bothers to defend these days.
In my posts, I have pointed to at least half a dozen different theories, none of which is Cartesian. It would be so helpful if you actually read what I posted sometimes.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Science isn't able to explain how we get from electro-chemical processes to a conscious 'you' without either pulling rabbits out of a hat or resorting to wishful thinking.
But that's not the argument we were having. That's the argument you were having with Susan et al when you decided to get all cross. Roughly speaking, "I have metaphysical (or omtoch) answers, you have intellectual dishonesty."
quote:
In my posts, I have pointed to at least half a dozen different theories, none of which is Cartesian. It would be so helpful if you actually read what I posted sometime
That's as maybe, but it's not clear to me that you have a handle on dualism vis a vis materialism.
edited to add:
Which is no great problem per se, because no one actually gives much of a shit, but it is kind of required if you want to make the critiques you've been doing recently.
[ 29. July 2013, 22:44: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: That's as maybe, but it's not clear to me that you have a handle on dualism vis a vis materialism.
Perhaps not, but I'm not required to.
In the last couple of weeks, I have had a number of discussions with people who assert that there is a scientific explanation for the brain. When I asked you (plural) to point to such an explanation, you always direct me to a page on the internet (most often on Wikipedia) that lists a number of theories: ranging from four or five to more than a dozen.
I asked a number of times "Which of these theories would you like to discuss?" but you always have wriggled around making a choice, or walked away from the discussion (as in your case).
So, in discussing things with you, I find myself in a position in which I have to guess what the lines of thought of all of you are. I mean, I need to have something to react to. So I go "Hmm, this sounds like naturalism, let's react to that." or "It seems like they're talking about emergent materialism, let's give my opinion on that." So, in the end I always end up formulating your theories for you.
To which you can always respond with "Nonononooo, that's not what I believe at all" or "LeRoc, do you really think that this is the only theory around?" or "You don't seem to grasp the relationship between materialist or dualist theories". As if it is my duty to classify your theories for you. Hel-looh? I'm the theist here, I don't believe in those theories.
So, the only thing I'm asking (at this point almost begging, imploring) is: if you think that there can be a scientific explanation for the brain, point to one —just one— explanation and we'll discuss it. You don't even have to commit yourself "this is the one that I'll believe in for all eternety", just picking a vague favourite will do. Then we'll pull up a chair, roll up our sleeves, order a good pint, and talk.
Until you do, I'll stay with my position: there cannot be a scientific explanation for the brain.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Come on, LeRoc, it's magic. Emergent whatnot, identity theory, epiphenomenalism - when you read about this stuff, it just sounds magical to me. Yes, rabbit out of hat.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
LeRoc, your posts have reminded me of some experiences I've had during long meditation retreats. I have seen many people (after a certain period of time, say a week), have an experience, which is a kind of great I am, but the centre of this I am is everywhere. I mean that you hear the bird singing, and that is the centre; your back hurts, that is the centre; the tap drips - the centre. It is the point of view of no point of view.
Anyway, for some people this is a great experience, and sometimes I equate it with the pearl of great price. It can change your life.
Of course, you can relate it to God, who is the great I am, and who creates us in his image, as an I am, which appears as the ego. Of course, then we can fend off the great I am, and try to kill it!
You probably know that the old mystics used to speak of a circle whose centre is everywhere; well, it is available to us.
Thank you for your posts.
[ 30. July 2013, 00:45: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
