|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,818 Year: 4,075/9,624 Month: 946/974 Week: 273/286 Day: 34/46 Hour: 6/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: John could I talk to you? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Gzus Inactive Member |
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 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: quote: 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
hi schraf,
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gzus Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
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.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shilohproject Inactive Member |
[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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 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...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024