Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you know truth?
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 114 (27280)
12-18-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by forgiven
12-18-2002 9:03 PM


AMEN
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by forgiven, posted 12-18-2002 9:03 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by forgiven, posted 12-18-2002 9:34 PM graedek has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 114 (27282)
12-18-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
12-18-2002 9:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
I don't know what truth is.
refreshing... i know you hate reading this schraf, but you can know not only what truth is, but the author of that truth... but you have to want to, and from my experience the desire has to be real

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 12-18-2002 9:55 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by nator, posted 01-16-2003 8:34 AM forgiven has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 114 (27283)
12-18-2002 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by graedek
12-18-2002 9:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by graedek:
AMEN

\0/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by graedek, posted 12-18-2002 9:31 PM graedek has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 114 (27507)
12-20-2002 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by forgiven
12-18-2002 9:29 PM


Forgiven, thanks for your reply. I hope I don't offend you.
My point is that materialism precludes free will because there is nothing for us to choose with, so to speak. We have a brain which is a physical object which runs according to physical laws. If order for free will to be possible, there would have to be something else that could control those brain functions a little (decide what to think about, for example). We don't have that if materialism is true.
As regards your point about the invalidity of relative morality, I agree that culture-specific morality is meaningless in a moral sense though not in a practical sense. We have pretend-moralities. What's good for Nazis is bad for us. Of course the reason for the differences in moralities really has to do with what we accept as facts rather than what we accept as moral. If we accepted the Nazi premises---what they think are "facts"--then we might make a case morally for what they did.
We no longer believe in witches but the morality hasn't changed. If we still believed in them, we would punish them. That's what I mean when I say the difference is an understanding of the facts.
Quetzal wants to have it both ways. He wants a meaningful morality and he even hints at some trans-cultural "norms," but he doesn't want to give up materialism.
You were also right in saying there are 2 choices--nihilism or some belief in something beyond the physical.
As far as my views, at the moment I don't believe in free will or soul or God. I was thinking that the concept of "mind" might help me. Mind would be what gives us free will. But I don't see how it could have evolved.
I hope I haven't offended you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by forgiven, posted 12-18-2002 9:29 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by forgiven, posted 12-20-2002 7:24 PM robinrohan has replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 114 (27509)
12-20-2002 4:12 PM


to make it more simple,
there is nihilism or dogmatism.
I choose nihilism, it's more honest!

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 114 (27512)
12-20-2002 4:29 PM


It is not the case that Hitler was 'right' or 'wrong', because nihilistically speaking, there are no such things. That is not to say, go and do what Hitler did. Universally speaking Hitler's conduct is of no importance whatsoever, it is as significant as coffee or pluto. However, for practical purposes, it is commonly opted to accept the refution of human freedom intellectually and ignore it in our actions. There has arisen a kind of morality based on 'human specific' goals, wants, etc. But at the end of the day, we're no more important, free or 'special' than the rock or the tv.

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by robinrohan, posted 12-20-2002 4:41 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 69 by forgiven, posted 12-20-2002 7:28 PM Gzus has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 114 (27513)
12-20-2002 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Gzus
12-20-2002 4:29 PM


I agree, Gzus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Gzus, posted 12-20-2002 4:29 PM Gzus has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 114 (27529)
12-20-2002 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by robinrohan
12-20-2002 3:51 PM


Originally posted by robinrohan:
Forgiven, thanks for your reply. I hope I don't offend you.
My point is that materialism precludes free will because there is nothing for us to choose with, so to speak. We have a brain which is a physical object which runs according to physical laws. If order for free will to be possible, there would have to be something else that could control those brain functions a little (decide what to think about, for example). We don't have that if materialism is true.
As regards your point about the invalidity of relative morality, I agree that culture-specific morality is meaningless in a moral sense though not in a practical sense. We have pretend-moralities. What's good for Nazis is bad for us. Of course the reason for the differences in moralities really has to do with what we accept as facts rather than what we accept as moral. If we accepted the Nazi premises---what they think are "facts"--then we might make a case morally for what they did.
We no longer believe in witches but the morality hasn't changed. If we still believed in them, we would punish them. That's what I mean when I say the difference is an understanding of the facts.
Quetzal wants to have it both ways. He wants a meaningful morality and he even hints at some trans-cultural "norms," but he doesn't want to give up materialism.
You were also right in saying there are 2 choices--nihilism or some belief in something beyond the physical.
As far as my views, at the moment I don't believe in free will or soul or God. I was thinking that the concept of "mind" might help me. Mind would be what gives us free will. But I don't see how it could have evolved.
I hope I haven't offended you.
you didn't offend me at all, what you wrote is pretty much what i thought you believed... i like Q, i think he has a sharp mind and possesses an abundance of patience (usually *grin*), at least in his exchanges with me.. but in this case i agree with you... we can't have it both ways... if we adhere to materiality, there can be no free will... if no free will, no *objective* morality
i hope you continue your quest, and i think your focus on the mind can only help... it hopefully will lead you to see that there has to be more than the physical... and if you ever come to that conclusion, who knows where it'll lead? i'll be glad to answer any questions you might have about my own thinking, for what it's worth... no preaching, unless or until you reach a point where you would like to compare the world's religions or something of that nature.. just remember, i'm a new testament guy... i know and understand the old, but think focusing on it puts the cart *wayyyyyy* ahead of the horse

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by robinrohan, posted 12-20-2002 3:51 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by robinrohan, posted 12-20-2002 8:21 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 114 (27530)
12-20-2002 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Gzus
12-20-2002 4:29 PM


Originally posted by Gzus:
It is not the case that Hitler was 'right' or 'wrong', because nihilistically speaking, there are no such things. That is not to say, go and do what Hitler did. Universally speaking Hitler's conduct is of no importance whatsoever, it is as significant as coffee or pluto. However, for practical purposes, it is commonly opted to accept the refution of human freedom intellectually and ignore it in our actions. There has arisen a kind of morality based on 'human specific' goals, wants, etc. But at the end of the day, we're no more important, free or 'special' than the rock or the tv.
if materialism is all that exists, you're right... the only morality that can exist is one based on power, which is fleeting... morality, in that case, would simply be (as robin said) a matter of practicalities based on perceived "facts"... there could be no such thing as free will, hence no morality

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Gzus, posted 12-20-2002 4:29 PM Gzus has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 114 (27538)
12-20-2002 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by forgiven
12-20-2002 7:24 PM


Forgiven: "I hope you continue your quest . .. "
That was one of the most positive things I've heard in ages. Thanks.
You may not be interested in my ideas, but I will give them to you soon . . . since you offered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by forgiven, posted 12-20-2002 7:24 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by forgiven, posted 12-20-2002 9:12 PM robinrohan has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 114 (27547)
12-20-2002 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by robinrohan
12-20-2002 8:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
Forgiven: "I hope you continue your quest . .. "
That was one of the most positive things I've heard in ages. Thanks.
You may not be interested in my ideas, but I will give them to you soon . . . since you offered.

i hardly ever say anything i don't mean... hardly ever ... i'll be waiting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by robinrohan, posted 12-20-2002 8:21 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by robinrohan, posted 12-22-2002 10:36 AM forgiven has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 114 (27641)
12-22-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by forgiven
12-20-2002 9:12 PM


Forgiven, the whole idea of "mind" is puzzling to me but apparently not to anyone else I've talked to. Tell me what's wrong with the following argument:
Let's take our ability to imagine something. At the moment I am visualizing a house I used to live in. This house no longer exists in a physical sense. However, you couldn't say that the image in my mind is nothing. The image is something or other. Where is this image? You can look high and low throughout the brain and never find it. What you find in the brain--if you had a super brainscope--are electronic codes conveying bits and pieces of information that make up the imaginary house. But the pictorial image itself is not there.
To use an analogy, a brain is like a computer but with no monitor attached, nothing that will turn the electronic codes into a physical pictorial image.
Nonetheless the image is "there"--wherever it is.
The image exists in time but not in space. It is purely mental. If that is the case, we have something that is not physical--namely that imaginary image, and so materialism is false.
Somebody might say--the image is not real!
But what that statement means is that it is not real in a physical sense. I never said it was.
Somebody might say--it is an illusion!
Well, yes, my mind has created it, and if you want to call it an illusion, that's fine, but then the illusion itself is purely mental.
You don't do away with the image by calling it an illusion.
[This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by forgiven, posted 12-20-2002 9:12 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 12:15 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 114 (27649)
12-22-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by robinrohan
12-22-2002 10:36 AM


hi robin
Originally posted by robinrohan:
Tell me what's wrong with the following argument:
Let's take our ability to imagine something. At the moment I am visualizing a house I used to live in. This house no longer exists in a physical sense. However, you couldn't say that the image in my mind is nothing. The image is something or other. Where is this image? You can look high and low throughout the brain and never find it. What you find in the brain--if you had a super brainscope--are electronic codes conveying bits and pieces of information that make up the imaginary house. But the pictorial image itself is not there.
can you smell the color red? can you taste a mozart concerto? can you feel the warmth of a star against your cheek? can you hear a van gogh speak to you? and if you could do these things, really do them, would you be called insane? or would you be called a poet? would you be pitied or envied?
i can answer what you're asking, but only from within my worldview... see robin, God can call forth that which doesn't exist and make it real... so can i.. so can you... he is a creator, as you are, as i am
the image of your house is real in every sense of the word, because you choose to make it real... if you describe it to me, i can make it real (though perhaps not *as* real as you can)... what neither of us can do (yet - maybe later) is take the energy used to form the image and restructure the molecules, we can't give it materiality... but that doesn't mean the image "isn't there"... the super brainscope may not find it, but you know it exists... you created it
To use an analogy, a brain is like a computer but with no monitor attached, nothing that will turn the electronic codes into a physical pictorial image.
Nonetheless the image is "there"--wherever it is.
The image exists in time but not in space. It is purely mental. If that is the case, we have something that is not physical--namely that imaginary image, and so materialism is false.
skeptics will say your question is easily explained by chemistry and biology, but you know their words are hollow... you have created an image, you have called forth that which wasn't as if it was (i know your house existed at one time, materially, but the image you created didn't have to be of that house)...
we have material things, and they exist both in- and outside time and space (does that surprise you?)... we have metaphysical things, and they exist both in- and outside time and space... the difference between the properties of the material entities is one of location only...
the properties we ascribe to the 'material' are different outside t/s than inside...
the properties of supernatural or transcendent or metaphysical enties differ only by location also... inside t/s, there is a need to convert to the material else they can be denied... not so outside
your image exists inside *and* outside t/s, robin, because your soul so exists... when the "material" that houses the eternal you no longer exists, you will take your house with you... if you choose to
Somebody might say--the image is not real!
But what that statement means is that it is not real in a physical sense. I never said it was.
Somebody might say--it is an illusion!
Well, yes, my mind has created it, and if you want to call it an illusion, that's fine, but then the illusion itself is purely mental.
You don't do away with the image by calling it an illusion.
there's nothing "wrong" with your argument, it's just built on a presupposition that the material is all that is... i bet you think that when you die, the image of your house dies with you, right? no, you've created something from nothing and it will exist for eternity...
it's possible that it will only exist for you, but it's also possible that some"where", some"time", you will give materiality to that image... you will walk the halls of your house... maybe... if you choose to...
your mind will always exist... it will exist in a place where wonders abound or in a place lacking in wonders... but it will always exist... and it will always exist because this is not all there is
i know this is a poor effort, i'm on drugs heheh... i think i'm coming down with the flu and my wife doped me up pretty good...
take care robin, i'll be in and out depending on how the saints are playing, those bums

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by robinrohan, posted 12-22-2002 10:36 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by John, posted 12-22-2002 12:29 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 114 (27652)
12-22-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by forgiven
12-22-2002 12:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
can you smell the color red? can you taste a mozart concerto? can you feel the warmth of a star against your cheek? can you hear a van gogh speak to you? and if you could do these things, really do them, would you be called insane? or would you be called a poet? would you be pitied or envied?
There is a very interesting disorder typified by just this sort of thing. Sensory Dysplasia it is called, I think.
quote:
Nonetheless the image is "there"--wherever it is.
I think robin's problem is in the definition of 'real.' What is a real image? When we see something the brain takes electrical impulses and interprets them. This is the image. The same sorts of mechanisms create images when we remember or imagine something.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 12:15 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 1:50 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 114 (27655)
12-22-2002 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by John
12-22-2002 12:29 PM


hi john,
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
can you smell the color red? can you taste a mozart concerto? can you feel the warmth of a star against your cheek? can you hear a van gogh speak to you? and if you could do these things, really do them, would you be called insane? or would you be called a poet? would you be pitied or envied?
There is a very interesting disorder typified by just this sort of thing. Sensory Dysplasia it is called, I think.
i think you may be missing the point, john.. i believe that in heaven such things will be normal, not abnormal (if they are abnormal now)... i take it you'd pity the person who professes this ability? attribute it to mental illness of some sort?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by John, posted 12-22-2002 12:29 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by John, posted 12-22-2002 3:14 PM forgiven has not replied
 Message 77 by robinrohan, posted 12-22-2002 8:41 PM forgiven has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024