Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   John could I talk to you?
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 92 (27503)
12-20-2002 3:22 PM


It is as Berkely said, 'we live in a world of dreams'.
how can we ever be sure of anything, in truth, the skeptic always wins, proving the statement 'nothing is sure except doubt'-descartes. you are therefore not 'obliged' to believe anything since you can always use the argument:
'but what if my senses are fooling me, what if i'm insane, what if this is all a dream?'
Having proven that you can never be obliged to believe anything, how can you be punished for not doing so?
The flaw in religions that include damnation is that they assume that religion is reasonably the only sensible belief. but if the possibility of true belief is refuted, then there are no grounds for retribution from a Kantian point of view.
but is God a reasonable God?
'the lord uses foolishness to confound the wise'
perhaps not, but hey, this statement is as 'believable' as the statements, 'i created the world' or 'god is dead'.
The second flaw in self-righteous religions lies in the assumption of free will.

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 92 (27504)
12-20-2002 3:41 PM


it would be good to read 'The Antimony of Freedom'
all these religions keep going on about humans having 'free will'. Without freedom, there is no conscious decision since all is pre-determined. there can therefore be no right or wrong since there is no freedom to choose 'right' or 'wrong' and (from a kantian point of view) no reason to be punished.
But if the laws of physics can be used to explain and predict the human mind, then there is no freedom. this has, sadly not yet been achieved, but some of us believe that the human body and mind obey the laws of physics. (if you don't, good for you, it's ok)
but then, there is another way to refute freedom. ask yourself the question,
'how is freedom possible?'
Consciousness is rational. We make choices for reasons. if we didn't, then we would be relying on 'unresaonable' stimuli such as primeval urges and our decisions would not be 'conscious'. but if all of our decisions happen for reasons, then surely, those reasons rely independently on other reasons, which in turn arise from other reasons, etc...
The paradox of freedom arises from the notion that 'all things happen for a reason'. but for consciousness to be free, somewhere along the line, there has to be a breaking point, where the only logical conclusion is, 'i don't know why this happened, it's free!'. but if it can't be explained, then how can it be rational, and if it isn't rational, how is it conscious?
rather puzzling isn't it?
no freedom = no morals, which means bye-bye ten commandments

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by forgiven, posted 12-20-2002 7:15 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 82 by joz, posted 12-22-2002 12:36 PM Gzus has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 92 (27528)
12-20-2002 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Gzus
12-20-2002 3:41 PM


Originally posted by Gzus:
no freedom = no morals, which means bye-bye ten commandments
but isn't that statement only true if your premise, "the laws of physics can be used to explain and predict the human mind" is true? in other words, isn't it only true if the material universe is all that exists?
what if such a thing as metaphysical (or transcendent or supernatural) entities exist? what if there *is* a God and what if he has created us with attributes he possesses, attributes that may or may not have natural {material} explanations?
fwiw, the 10 commandments don't really play a role in christianity, at least not in the christianity i practice

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Gzus, posted 12-20-2002 3:41 PM Gzus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 12-22-2002 11:22 AM forgiven has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 92 (27645)
12-22-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by funkmasterfreaky
12-20-2002 1:40 PM


quote:
No, I don't know.
Do you believe the people who say, with just as much or more conviction and belief that they are telling the truth about theiir reality as you, say that the God of your Bible exists, that they have been taken up into alien spacecraft and experimented on?
quote:
Yes I believe them though I think they are quite possibly mislead as to what exactly happened to them during their experiences. *bracing for assault* I don't know what happened here, this thread has become useless to me, as to what I had started it for.
Well then, how do you know you haven't been misled as to what exactly happened to you during your experiences?
If you apply the same logic...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-20-2002 1:40 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 92 (27646)
12-22-2002 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by forgiven
12-20-2002 7:15 PM


quote:
but isn't that statement only true if your premise, "the laws of physics can be used to explain and predict the human mind" is true? in other words, isn't it only true if the material universe is all that exists?
The second statement doesn't follow from the first.
It could be true that the laws of physics could be used to explain and predict the human mind.
It does not follow that, therefore, the material universe is all that exists.
God could have created the laws of physics and set the universe in motion, but does not intervene.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by forgiven, posted 12-20-2002 7:15 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 12:25 PM nator has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 92 (27650)
12-22-2002 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
12-22-2002 11:22 AM


hi schraf,
quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
forgiven:
but isn't that statement only true if your premise, "the laws of physics can be used to explain and predict the human mind" is true? in other words, isn't it only true if the material universe is all that exists?
The second statement doesn't follow from the first.
It could be true that the laws of physics could be used to explain and predict the human mind.
It does not follow that, therefore, the material universe is all that exists.
God could have created the laws of physics and set the universe in motion, but does not intervene.

you left out the original question concerning morality and free will, so my quote above is slightly out of context.. however, what sayeth you? is the material all that exists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 12-22-2002 11:22 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 01-16-2003 7:30 AM forgiven has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 92 (27653)
12-22-2002 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Gzus
12-20-2002 3:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
...But if the laws of physics can be used to explain and predict the human mind, then there is no freedom. this has, sadly not yet been achieved, but some of us believe that the human body and mind obey the laws of physics. (if you don't, good for you, it's ok)...
See I`m going to have to disagree with you there because so much of what happens in the brain is on the quantum scale I don`t think we will ever be able to perfectly "explain and predict the human mind", Theres this fella called Heisenburg that says it just can`t be done.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Gzus, posted 12-20-2002 3:41 PM Gzus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Gzus, posted 12-22-2002 5:05 PM joz has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 92 (27663)
12-22-2002 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by joz
12-22-2002 12:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
...But if the laws of physics can be used to explain and predict the human mind, then there is no freedom. this has, sadly not yet been achieved, but some of us believe that the human body and mind obey the laws of physics. (if you don't, good for you, it's ok)...
See I`m going to have to disagree with you there because so much of what happens in the brain is on the quantum scale I don`t think we will ever be able to perfectly "explain and predict the human mind", Theres this fella called Heisenburg that says it just can`t be done.....

But who says randomness is free? randomness is bounded by the law of randomness, it is unfree in the sense that it does not choose to be random but just 'is'. if the human mind is explained statistically through randomness then it is no more free than if it were explained deterministically. The only way that free will can be preserved is if the supernatural intervenes somehow to make the mind unexplainable.
There is however the possibility that a mind that cannot be explained is not rational and therefore not conscious/free. The great question is, how is conscious freedom possible?
it is very easy to use the argument similar to
'can god create an object that he cannot lift?' -yes of course he can, he's god!, or it's beyond us!
but this presupposes that logic itself is flawed, a dangerous assumption.
[This message has been edited by Gzus, 12-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by joz, posted 12-22-2002 12:36 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 8:18 PM Gzus has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 92 (27689)
12-22-2002 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Gzus
12-22-2002 5:05 PM


Originally posted by Gzus:
But who says randomness is free? randomness is bounded by the law of randomness, it is unfree in the sense that it does not choose to be random but just 'is'. if the human mind is explained statistically through randomness then it is no more free than if it were explained deterministically. The only way that free will can be preserved is if the supernatural intervenes somehow to make the mind unexplainable.
your last sentence is true, as far as it goes... i'm afraid i'm not familiar with the "law of randomness"... could you formulate it for me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Gzus, posted 12-22-2002 5:05 PM Gzus has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 92 (27708)
12-23-2002 1:43 AM


Gzus are you talking about chaos theory here? if not what?
I`ve never heard of such a curious (oxymoronic?) "law of randomness"....
On another note its probably worth pointing out that for someone who sees free will together with an omnicogniscient God as impossible (i.e Mark, John and I amongst others) the fact that free will seems to exsist (due to the uncertainty principle) is a pretty potent evidence against said omnicogniscient Gods exsistence....
I mean thank "blind naturalistic forces" that we didn`t find out that there is no free will, then both sides would be up a certain body of water with no means of propulsion.....

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 6:16 PM joz has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 92 (27862)
12-25-2002 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by joz
12-23-2002 1:43 AM


Originally posted by joz:
On another note its probably worth pointing out that for someone who sees free will together with an omnicogniscient God as impossible (i.e Mark, John and I amongst others) the fact that free will seems to exsist (due to the uncertainty principle) is a pretty potent evidence against said omnicogniscient Gods exsistence....
joz, i would think that the reverse is true instead... if nature is all that exists, everything is determined since everything that is *now* is simply a consequent of an immediately preceding antecedent state of affairs... it takes the supernatural (or metaphysical if you will) for freedom of choice to be true
in your worldview, aren't your reason, your mind, your beliefs, your brain a part of nature? in your worldview, what can account for those things that is not material?
if so, they must of necessity be determined since naturalism states that everything in nature is dependent on the antecedent state of the rest of nature as determined by those self-same natural laws
and joz, if *all* your beliefs are determined, then any one belief would obviously be determined... isn't this true? and if it is true that any particular belief is determined, you have no choice but to believe it... no freedom of will at all, if naturalism is true
that leads, inexorably, to the fact that any single belief is held not on the basis of good reason, but because it is the consequent of all preceding antecedent causes...
you do not choose your beliefs, joz... you hold the beliefs you do because of the antecedent state of the universe, whether that belief is true or not... unless, of course, something other than the material exists... something like, for example, the God who created us and endowed us with the attributes he possesses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by joz, posted 12-23-2002 1:43 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by joz, posted 12-25-2002 11:39 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 88 by shilohproject, posted 12-26-2002 1:18 AM forgiven has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 92 (27873)
12-25-2002 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by forgiven
12-25-2002 6:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
joz, i would think that the reverse is true instead... if nature is all that exists, everything is determined since everything that is *now* is simply a consequent of an immediately preceding antecedent state of affairs... it takes the supernatural (or metaphysical if you will) for freedom of choice to be true
in your worldview, aren't your reason, your mind, your beliefs, your brain a part of nature? in your worldview, what can account for those things that is not material?
if so, they must of necessity be determined since naturalism states that everything in nature is dependent on the antecedent state of the rest of nature as determined by those self-same natural laws
and joz, if *all* your beliefs are determined, then any one belief would obviously be determined... isn't this true? and if it is true that any particular belief is determined, you have no choice but to believe it... no freedom of will at all, if naturalism is true
that leads, inexorably, to the fact that any single belief is held not on the basis of good reason, but because it is the consequent of all preceding antecedent causes...
you do not choose your beliefs, joz... you hold the beliefs you do because of the antecedent state of the universe, whether that belief is true or not... unless, of course, something other than the material exists... something like, for example, the God who created us and endowed us with the attributes he possesses

Only if cause and effect hold and down at the scale at which the brain works quantum mechanics and A certain Mr Heisenburgs uncertainty principle boot causality out of the window....
Without cause and effect you can`t predetermine that a certain outcome will occur given the starting conditions, down at the level of firing neurons there is no such animal as causality per se....
Oh and for a macroscopic example there's weather, given all the starting conditions you still can`t predict what will happen months in advance because a nasty little bugger called chaos theory rears its ill aspected little head, again throwing causality per se out the picture....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 6:16 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by forgiven, posted 12-26-2002 7:17 AM joz has replied

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 92 (27876)
12-26-2002 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by forgiven
12-25-2002 6:16 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
joz, if *all* your beliefs are determined, then any one belief would obviously be determined... isn't this true? and if it is true that any particular belief is determined, you have no choice but to believe it... no freedom of will at all, if naturalism is true
that leads, inexorably, to the fact that any single belief is held not on the basis of good reason, but because it is the consequent of all preceding antecedent causes...
you do not choose your beliefs, joz... you hold the beliefs you do because of the antecedent state of the universe, whether that belief is true or not... unless, of course, something other than the material exists... something like, for example, the God who created us and endowed us with the attributes he possesses[/B][/QUOTE]
On the issue of free will v. antecedent programming/prediction:
We know, statistically, that people raised in conservative households tend to be conservative themselves; those in liberal households, liberal. There tend to be Ford families and Chevy families. Children of Aggies are more likely to go to Texas A& M than they are to go to the University of Texas.
People born into the "Christian" West tend to be Christian, statistically, allowing for predictable exceptions. In China, they tend to be Buddhist. In Saudi, Muslim. In India, Hindu. In each of these cases there will follow a certain amount of predictable worldview and an often well developed ethic system which seems to reflect culture.
Is it possible that our connection with God, by whatever name an individual may use, is overly influenced by socialization? Should we toss all that in the tank in an effort to hear any "still, soft voice" that may be out there speaking to us?
What are your thoughts on this, Hobson?
-Shiloh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 6:16 PM forgiven has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 92 (27883)
12-26-2002 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by joz
12-25-2002 11:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Oh and for a macroscopic example there's weather, given all the starting conditions you still can`t predict what will happen months in advance because a nasty little bugger called chaos theory rears its ill aspected little head, again throwing causality per se out the picture....
ok, i'd like to take this in slow steps so i don't miss anything... how does the fact that we can't predict weather months in advance have any bearing on whether or not that weather is contingent upon antecedent states of affairs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by joz, posted 12-25-2002 11:39 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by joz, posted 12-26-2002 8:47 AM forgiven has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 92 (27889)
12-26-2002 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by forgiven
12-26-2002 7:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ok, i'd like to take this in slow steps so i don't miss anything... how does the fact that we can't predict weather months in advance have any bearing on whether or not that weather is contingent upon antecedent states of affairs?
from: http://www.advancedforecasting.com/...ation/chaostheory.html
A system in chaotic motion is completely unpredictable. Given the configuration of the system at any one point in time, it is impossible to predict with certainty how it will end up at a later point in time.
Does that help?
And while it also says...
These systems are called chaotic. The unpredictability of chaotic systems comes about from their sensitivity to their initial conditions. Two identical chaotic systems that area set in motion with slightly different initial conditions can quickly exhibit motions that are very different.
What do you think billions upon billions of random interactions at the quantum level will do two two identical systems with identiccal starting conditions?
BTW shall we take this over to that other thread or let that one drop down the page and keep it here? Your choice but it seems wastefull to argue the same points on 2 threads simultaneously...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by forgiven, posted 12-26-2002 7:17 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by forgiven, posted 12-26-2002 9:07 AM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024