"Turn him loose as a theorist..."

[CezeN]

Cezen,

In simple terms, then: The "Structure" of that proof is not clever. It is foolish. It needs to establish a false equivalency (something that I am growing tired of in both philosophy AND politics) in order to pick up any steam. If you FIND the false equivalency early on (as I have done, and as you either refuse to do, or are unable to see), then the argument collapses into a messy pile of words.*


* As in "your computer box needs more words": http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail118.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nope.

Also, too lazy to go to your link.

[Boothby]

It's not satirical. I think it is a valid argument

...my opinion is that the difference between the two types of rational beings simply...doesn't matter. In fact, that's the cleverness of it.

I've already recognized that the two are not the same

If the difference doesn't matter, then you can treat them (for the sake of your argument) as if they are the same. Otherwise, the difference matters.

So, just like I said, you're all over the place.


BTW, "Boothby's Five Rules" were originally formulated over 10 years ago, in my attempt to codify what I saw as the typical lousy logic of most religious/apologetic theorizing. What I find humorous is that they continue to work so well, without too much in the way of modification.

[elfprince13]

*bump*

Also, as far as it being a test of self control - James 1:13 'Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.' The question of why God allows bad things to happen (regardless of whether or not someone personally believes being born with a particular gene sequence to be one of those things) is called the "problem of evil". I don't want to derail your thread though, but if you feel like asking about it/discussing it, we can always do so in your "theorist" topic (or a new one).

I wouldn't mind hearing more about the "problem of evil".

So the problem, as usually phrased is, something like "how can there be a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and good if evil exists in the world?"


My answer to the question is in several steps, but the first is to consider what we mean by good and evil. If God created people, in His likeness, to exist in a loving and whole relationship with Him (and by extension, with His creation and His other image-bearers), then our understanding of what is good has to be in terms of those whole relationships. The second step is realizing that a relationship is a two way street - in a whole relationship, not only must God relate to us in a way that is perfect and loving, but we must do the same in reverse. In order for these relationships to be meaningful, we must be allowed the freedom to choose to participate in them, or not, as we will. It would be silly, for example, to claim that you "loved" your finger puppets or Lego people in a way that meant more than finding them aesthetically pleasing or to be enjoyable play things. You don't relate to them in the same way that you do to another autonomous entity. Evil, is then the result of these relationships being broken, and the "problem of evil" as formulated above is resolved by understanding that if God were to exercise his omnipotence to remove all evil, we would be no more than finger puppets, and the goodness of a loving and right relationship would with God, or each other, or the created universe, would lose its meaning.


[edit]

The "consciousness" or "self-awareness" question is much trickier question to discuss, but some interesting starting points for discussion are the Turing Test and Searle's "Chinese Room" Experiment (and sophistications thereupon), and discussions of the mind/brain distinction. Does anyone have familiarity with or thoughts on these subjects?

[Boothby]

"Please, tell me more about your Turing test..."

(Paraphrased from Eliza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Re. "Good and Evil," first: thank you for using colloquial language!

Second: Why does our understanding of "good" have to be strictly in terms of our relationship with God? Or, by "other image-bearers," do you mean "all mankind"?

Third: You use the term "Perfect and Loving." Given "God exists" as your premise, with the (assumed) corollary that God is also "perfect," I would add that men (and women) are NOT perfect. Basically, because we're not, and that's OK--since we're only in God's "Likeness" God may treat us in a "perfect and loving" manner (which I would, of course, disagree with; and can, and later will, find plenty of examples), but we--by our nature--cannot deal with him in a perfect manner.

BTW, I have read that some people (typically young, Japanese men) claim to "love" their silicone/anime dolls. I would classify that as sad, and odd, or sick, but...evil?

But it seems that you are saying that God must allow us to screw up our relationships with other people (and him), or we lose autonomy/free-will.

[LucasKintao]

Damn, you gave me a massive headache with all those refutations and claims on refutations that are claiming something that refutes the idea of something that was not even the main discussion anymore. There's just too much to cope with.

[CezeN]

1.

It's not satirical. I think it is a valid argument

...my opinion is that the difference between the two types of rational beings simply...doesn't matter. In fact, that's the cleverness of it.

I've already recognized that the two are not the same

2. If the difference doesn't matter, then you can treat them (for the sake of your argument) as if they are the same. Otherwise, the difference matters.

So, just like I said, you're all over the place.


3. BTW, "Boothby's Five Rules" were originally formulated over 10 years ago, in my attempt to codify what I saw as the typical lousy logic of most religious/apologetic theorizing. What I find humorous is that they continue to work so well, without too much in the way of modification.

1. Validity under formal logic concern whether the premises, if true, support the conclusion. Whether it is good reasoning.
That doesn't mean that it's actually true a.k.a. sound. Because the premises could be wrong.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Formal_Log ... c/Validity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. So, what point are you trying to make exactly? Look, supposing that CezeN is my last name, people may call both me and my brother Mr. CezeN. The fact that we have two different first names doesn't matter in that regard. We are both Mr. CezeN. And yet, regardless of the fact that that title can refer to both of us - we are two different people. I am not my brother.

So me and my brother are different, but for the sake of the title Mr. CezeN, we are the same. I guess we are equivalent in that regard. I guess a rational fictional and rational nonfictional character is equivalent in that they both believe in their own existence.
I still fail to see how I'm all over the place. I still fail to see your point. I also fail to see a false equivalency, so by your own admission, the argument still holds up.

Like I said before, the cleverness is the fact that it doesn't matter.

3. Interesting. I think it needs a bit of amending and fixing(I pointed out a hole in the bonus in my long post, though it was a hole in what I perceived you meant, not what you literally said *shrug*). Also, it works to give you excuses to dismiss a person's argument - even a straw man interpretation of it - without actually putting in the effort. You should amend it so that you can actually, correctly apply it to me since you think I'm doing something wrong.

[Boothby]

Wow. So many words. So little understanding.

It's not satirical. I think it is a valid argument

1) You said you were not being satirical. You were presenting a valid argument. But when I actually responded, then you say you are not serious ("Bolded underlined portion clearly implies a lack of seriousness.") This supports my claim that "you are all over the place"

supposing that CezeN is my last name, people may call both me and my brother Mr. CezeN. The fact that we have two different first names doesn't matter in that regard. We are both Mr. CezeN. And yet, regardless of the fact that that title can refer to both of us - we are two different people. I am not my brother.

So me and my brother are different, but for the sake of the title Mr. CezeN, we are the same. I guess we are equivalent in that regard. I guess a rational fictional and rational nonfictional character is equivalent in that they both believe in their own existence.

So, you and your theoretical brother are different, except for one aspect, your (supposed) last name. I am sensing that the difference between you and your theoretical brother sort of DOES matter. If he's out there writing bad checks in your name, and ruining your credit rating, I would bet that it matters.

But you still make such a very, very odd argument: "I guess a rational fictional and rational nonfictional character is equivalent in that they both believe in their own existence" Please, listen very carefully: a fictional character does not "believe" anything. Herman Melville can write that Ishmael believes that it was good time that he went back out to sea, but there is no Ishmael to believe anything. Why are we even HAVING this discussion? Do you actually believe that there is no meaningful difference between a real person and a fictional character?

But please...continue on with your approach. Without me.

[elfprince13]

"Please, tell me more about your Turing test..."

(Paraphrased from Eliza: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

For those who don't know, Alan Turing proposed a though experiment in his essay on "thinking machines", as a way to empirically sidestep the question of what it would mean for a machine to think. The proposed test was an imitation game to see if a panel of judges could determine, in a blind study (no prior information on the subjects), which conversation partner (interacting through chat program), if any, was a computer, and which, if any, was a human. As an interesting historical note, Turing struggled with gender identity issues, and he first proposed the test in terms of men and women imitating one another (in the same paper, as a precursor to the computerized version). A followup thought experiment was proposed by the philosopher John Searle to reject the idea that computers could be given consciousness. This one is both more involved, and more interesting:

suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker. To all of the questions that the person asks, it makes appropriate responses, such that any Chinese speaker would be convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human being.

The question Searle wants to answer is this: does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese? Searle calls the first position "strong AI" and the latter "weak AI".

Searle then supposes that he is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. As the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it is fair, says Searle, to deduce that he would be able to do so as well, simply by running the program manually.

Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the role the computer plays in the first case and the role he plays in the latter. Each is simply following a program, step-by-step, which simulates intelligent behavior. And yet, Searle points out, "I don't speak a word of Chinese." Since he does not understand Chinese, Searle argues, we must infer that the computer does not understand Chinese either.

Re. "Good and Evil," first: thank you for using colloquial language!

This is less an intentional decision on my part and more a byproduct of the subject matter being less closely related to the technical fields of logic, theory of computation and physics than our previous conversation; but I'm glad I was understood.

Second: Why does our understanding of "good" have to be strictly in terms of our relationship with God? Or, by "other image-bearers," do you mean "all mankind"?

You have it exactly - it is Christian theology that mankind is created in the image of God. Of course you are free to discuss other answers to the "problem of evil" that don't build on Christian theology, but I was providing my own answer. You could also frame the idea of "good" however you want to construct your own argument on the issue (though, as you point out, we might disagree on which formulation is the correct one), but I find framing the definition of good in terms of relationship is a helpful way to do away with silly idealized representational objects and deal with something concrete. Ultimately, I would say relationships between ourselves and God, ourselves and other human beings, and ourselves and the universe are all important in understanding "good", but in a Christian theology where human beings are God's "image-bearers" and the entire universe is His Creation, than it should be easy to see that if your relationship with either of the latter two is somehow gone wrong, than our relationship to God is also gone wrong (if I burn down your house, and punch your child in the face, I have a problem with my relationship to you just as much as I do in my relationship to your child or your house).

Third: You use the term "Perfect and Loving." Given "God exists" as your premise, with the (assumed) corollary that God is also "perfect," I would add that men (and women) are NOT perfect. Basically, because we're not, and that's OK--since we're only in God's "Likeness" God may treat us in a "perfect and loving" manner (which I would, of course, disagree with; and can, and later will, find plenty of examples), but we--by our nature--cannot deal with him in a perfect manner.

You're almost spot on here as well - note that the original question is framed in terms of "how can God exist if _____", so answers are going to be "He could exist like ________", or "He couldn't". I should also describe God as "perfectly just" in addition to the other attributes I've already mentioned, since it is an important one, one I suspect will come up later (in anticipation to your objection of my view of God). The one correction I have to make is that in Christian theology there is a degree of imperfection in human nature which extends beyond the simple fact of our being finite beings and mere "likenesses" (do you prefer that phrase to "image-bearer"?) - which is the notion of The Fall. But you are correct in saying that within the premise of my argument, we - by nature - cannot deal with him, or anything else, in a perfect manner.

BTW, I have read that some people (typically young, Japanese men) claim to "love" their silicone/anime dolls. I would classify that as sad, and odd, or sick, but...evil?

I think you misunderstood my point here, but you raise another good one. My point was that I was not using "love" in the manner that implies "affection for a possession/food/activity", but rather the manner that implies inter-personal relationship. However your hesitancy to use the word "evil" in that case is actually somewhat prescient of Christian theology, in that we usually prefer to use the word "sin", which is a transliteration of a Greek word with the archery connotation of "missing the mark". It's hard to say what a right relationship with a silicone doll would look like (not owning one in the first place, perhaps?), but it's easy to see it's not that - they're "missing the mark" of the sort of relationships God intended for them to have.

But it seems that you are saying that God must allow us to screw up our relationships with other people (and him), or we lose autonomy/free-will.

Yes. That's the one-sentence summary. I might extend it by saying "and if we lose autonomy/free-will, than morality and good/evil become meaningless anyway".

[Boothby]

I mis-read your response as saying:

It's hard to say what a .... relationship with a silicone doll would look like

And my first thought was I don't think I really want to know, followed by It probably involves a lot of scrubbing with a special-purpose cleaner

[Boothby]

Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the role the computer plays in the first case and the role he plays in the latter. Each is simply following a program, step-by-step, which simulates intelligent behavior. And yet, Searle points out, "I don't speak a word of Chinese." Since he does not understand Chinese, Searle argues, we must infer that the computer does not understand Chinese either.

Interesting. Let's say I was Chinese, and someone handed me questions in English. I transcribe them to Chinese, hand them off to another thing for answering, and then transcribe the answer back. According to Searle, I must infer that the "other thing" does not understand English. But not having the benefit of knowing what is in the other room, I cannot tell if the other thing is a person or program. Searle therefore proposes, perhaps indirectly, that none of us actually understands a goddamned thing.

Crap--now I have to accuse Searle of resorting to Boothby's Rule 3: "How can we ever really know anything?!"

But what happens if we hand the English translation off to a fictional character in the other room, such as Harry Potter? According to CeZeN, Mr. Potter would not only be able to answer the question in English, but he'd be aware of the fact that he's doing it. Harry: do you breathe in first, then breathe out, or do you breathe out, first?

[elfprince13]

Searle asserts that there is no essential difference between the role the computer plays in the first case and the role he plays in the latter. Each is simply following a program, step-by-step, which simulates intelligent behavior. And yet, Searle points out, "I don't speak a word of Chinese." Since he does not understand Chinese, Searle argues, we must infer that the computer does not understand Chinese either.

Interesting. Let's say I was Chinese, and someone handed me questions in English. I transcribe them to Chinese, hand them off to another thing for answering, and then transcribe the answer back. According to Searle, I must infer that the "other thing" does not understand English. But not having the benefit of knowing what is in the other room, I cannot tell if the other thing is a person or program. Searle therefore proposes, perhaps indirectly, that none of us actually understands a goddamned thing.

Crap--now I have to accuse Searle of resorting to Boothby's Rule 3: "How can we ever really know anything?!"

He's not arguing that we can never know, but that being able to compute an answer to a question isn't sufficient to claim knowledge of a subject (he's rejecting the notion of "computationalism").

[CezeN]

Wow. So many words. So little understanding.

It's not satirical. I think it is a valid argument

1. You said you were not being satirical. You were presenting a valid argument. But when I actually responded, then you say you are not serious ("Bolded underlined portion clearly implies a lack of seriousness.") This supports my claim that "you are all over the place"

supposing that CezeN is my last name, people may call both me and my brother Mr. CezeN. The fact that we have two different first names doesn't matter in that regard. We are both Mr. CezeN. And yet, regardless of the fact that that title can refer to both of us - we are two different people. I am not my brother.

So me and my brother are different, but for the sake of the title Mr. CezeN, we are the same. I guess we are equivalent in that regard. I guess a rational fictional and rational nonfictional character is equivalent in that they both believe in their own existence.

2. So, you and your theoretical brother are different, except for one aspect, your (supposed) last name. I am sensing that the difference between you and your theoretical brother sort of DOES matter. If he's out there writing bad checks in your name, and ruining your credit rating, I would bet that it matters.

3. But you still make such a very, very odd argument: "I guess a rational fictional and rational nonfictional character is equivalent in that they both believe in their own existence" Please, listen very carefully: a fictional character does not "believe" anything. Herman Melville can write that Ishmael believes that it was good time that he went back out to sea, but there is no Ishmael to believe anything. Why are we even HAVING this discussion? Do you actually believe that there is no meaningful difference between a real person and a fictional character?

But please...continue on with your approach. Without me.

1. Yeah, I said I wasn't being satirical.
sat·ire/ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
Noun:
The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of...

Because I didn't intend to ridicule or expose the stupidity of the "proof". I said that I thought it was "clever", and wanted to see how other people would react to it.

In other words, there isn't a dilemma where I'm either being serious or being satirical. False Dilemma Fallacy. I'm neither being satirical nor serious. In fact, I'm pretty sure didn't say "I'm not being serious", I said "I didn't actually make up the proof; when I first heard it, I dismissed it for my own reasons. I don't take it seriously"

. I don't take it seriously(as obvious by the language used in my post), however I think the structure of it is quite clever.

And, that quote of mine that you started your post off with - why don't you post the rest of the sentence instead of being fallacious?

It's not satirical. I think it is a valid argument, though I don't actually believe that it works to prove God in any practical sense.
And, I can think of a few refutations.

In other words, I'm only all over the place... if you don't pay attention to what I'm saying and then fallaciously misinterpret it? Interesting.

2. So, what you're saying is that we are different, and the difference matters in certain situations, but in the matter of the phrase Mr. CezeN we are referred to by the same thing. You're not saying something new or something I didn't already acknowledge. *shrugs*

3. At this point, you're just regurgitating what you already said...that I already replied to. I refer you back to my first reply to you - which you never actually replied to.

I don't need to continue my approach... I'm pretty sure I'm done here, regardless of whether you provide me with another reply to dismiss or not.

[CezeN]

Bonus:

"God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it).

I can't actually explain what this means, but I'll explain the concept of "an omnipotent entity is above the rules of logic". It means that though he may operate under them, he is also not limited by them. This includes miracles and the ability to do contradictory things at the same time, such as make a rock he can't lift, not lift it, and lift it at the same time. And being able to do anything AND not able to do something, at the same time.

To expand(not directed at anyone), if quantum physicists can make a paddle moving and standing still at the same time in real life... I'm not sure an omnipotent being would have such a hard time similarly doing logically-contradictory things.

While I don't understand the science of it or how it's possible, I don't understand how God could do impossible things, either. But apparently it can be done.

[elfprince13]

To expand(not directed at anyone), if quantum physicists can make a paddle moving and standing still at the same time in real life... I'm not sure an omnipotent being would have such a hard time similarly doing logically-contradictory things.

While I don't understand the science of it or how it's possible, I don't understand how God could do impossible things, either. But apparently it can be done.

a) Please never link to the Daily Mail in a serious conversation again. Ever.
b) That's not actually contradictory or impossible, it's just quantum mechanics.

[Boothby]

EP13,

It read to me like Searle was saying that one of the leading (at least one of the leading theoretical/philosophical) tests for awareness/intelligence/understanding is unreliable as a test for those very things. Basically, if something PASSED the "Chinese Box" test (a superset of the "Turing Test"), you could still not know if the thing passing the test (whether a person or a program) had understanding of the subject matter (or, by extension, ANY subject matter)

[elfprince13]

EP13,

It read to me like Searle was saying that one of the leading (at least one of the leading theoretical/philosophical) tests for awareness/intelligence/understanding is unreliable as a test for those very things. Basically, if something PASSED the "Chinese Box" test (a superset of the "Turing Test"), you could still not know if the thing passing the test (whether a person or a program) had understanding of the subject matter (or, by extension, ANY subject matter)

Turing's "Imitation Game" (the "Turing Test") was first proposed to sidestep the question of intelligence and understanding. Rather than attempting to answer the question "are machines intelligent (or can they be)?", Turing instead proposed to ask the question "what would be the consequences of a machine successfully imitating a human?". The modern interpretation that it is a test for machine intelligence is due only to a widespread assumption that we already know the answer to Turing's question, rather than contemplating its consequences. Searle's test is intended to show that there should be a distinction between intelligence and being able to imitate intelligence.

[Boothby]

I agree: there should be.

Is there?

[elfprince13]

I would like to think so, and that belief meshes well with my belief in human spirituality. On the other hand, I'm not convinced you can reasonably make that claim if you believe the human mind is merely a biochemical computer.

[Boothby]

It may be that individuals recognize when they, themselves, understand something.

I have found that it is very difficult to determine when others actually understand what they are talking about, though. Especially if they are Republicans.

[Boothby]

It's like the "Chinese Box" scenario, except that the "Box" in this case is a television playing endless re-runs of Fox News, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity.

I would write out a sentence, "Please explain the current economic environment in the United States, and compare it to the economic crisis in Europe," and the answer I would get back would always be, "Obama is a communist, socialist, fascist, Muslim Kenyan who is a homosexual, and who's father was a plumber from Seattle!"

[Tiny genius]

Okay, once again I've not got the time or energy to hunt through the posts here and find your original stances.

Are you saying that the human mind is a biochemical computer, Steve?
Possible, with a MAJOR quantum factor thrown in.

I'm not sure what your main stance is Thomas, enlighten me?

[Boothby]

TG,

Well, but of course the human mind is a biochemical SOMETHING. As best as we can currently label it, it's fair enough to call it a computer.

From Wikipedia:

Conventionally, a computer consists of at least one processing element and some form of memory. The processing element carries out arithmetic and logic operations, and a sequencing and control unit that can change the order of operations based on stored information. Peripheral devices allow information to be retrieved from an external source, and the result of operations saved and retrieved.

However, there is this pesky aspect of "Self Awareness" to our Meat-based Processor Units (MPU's). Where it comes from, I don't know. Neuroscientists are trying their damnedest to figure it out. Some say it's a natural, non-spiritual by-product of having enough processing and interconnections going on. For now, I can handle that. And it's certainly better than saying it's "Spirit" or "God," which is just a pretense for saying, "I don't know," but by way of throwing a bunch of other ridiculous nonsense into the mix in a failed attempt to distract others (and one's self) from that basic ignorance.

But I've heard this "quantum" reference thrown in. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means." What do YOU think it means?

It is some random element thrown in?

Is there some quantum entanglement between the quantum aspect of our minds and the quantum nature of the micro-cosmos that IS the mechanism through which waveforms are made to collapse? (I made this one up)

[Tiny genius]

Despite my belief in God, I do believe that SA can be explained by physics and not spiritualism.

When you mention the quantum nature of the mind and micro-cosmos and the entaglement thereof causing the collapse of the waveform, I'm reminded of something written in The Cosmic Blueprint.

Computers are more rigid and stable in their circuitry than the human mind and I think that this, along with quantum entaglement, is the crux of conscioussness. I can't really elaborate because I haven't studied enough to. I really need to read some more books.

[Boothby]

I think it's birds. Brightly colored birds in tight formations are the crux of consciousness.

In other words: just using words in sentences does not make for an explanation. It's no good when religion does it, and it's no good when one uses "science" words. What's the REASONING behind "Quantum entanglement and waveform collapse are the crux of consciousness"??

[Tiny genius]

Oh for smeg sake!

I told you I'd explain it if I could. It's just an idea that I plan to back up or abandon based on what I find out next through my CASUAL study. I'm advancing an opinion, not an attempt at an explanation. All I can say is that based on what I know it seems likely that quantum entanglement and the inherrent instability of the human mind are in some way involved in consciousness which is in turn involved with the collapse of quantum waveforms.

So take your bloody birds back where they came from before I drench them with your bloody wet, yellow bosons.

[Boothby]

Dude! DUDE! Chill! I'm just trying to apply the same level of skepticism to the use of scientific jargon as I would to religious jargon! I meant nothing personal by it. I would expect to be called out on that, myself!

[Tiny genius]

You asked me for the reasoning behind my statement when I made it clear, by saying that I had to study more and prefacing the statement with "I think", that it was an opinion without much basis.

[Boothby]

I was merely pointing out the overall value of stating an opinion that has no basis.

[CezeN]

To expand(not directed at anyone), if quantum physicists can make a paddle moving and standing still at the same time in real life... I'm not sure an omnipotent being would have such a hard time similarly doing logically-contradictory things.

While I don't understand the science of it or how it's possible, I don't understand how God could do impossible things, either. But apparently it can be done.

a) Please never link to the Daily Mail in a serious conversation again. Ever.
b) That's not actually contradictory or impossible, it's just quantum mechanics.

1. Give me a good reason it's wrong to link in this instance.
2. My point being that there are methods for doing what most people with lesser understanding/knowledge of the world would consider contradictory or impossible. If you didn't know Quantum Mechanics, you would think it was contradictory or impossible. Apply this analogy to God(omniscient) doing seemingly impossible things.

[elfprince13]

I'm not sure what your main stance is Thomas, enlighten me?

As far as philosophy of mind/consciousness is concerned, I'm an "integrated dualist". This means I believe that human existence has both a physical and a non-physical (spiritual) aspect, but that our minds are made up of some interaction between our physical brains and our spiritual selves. This is similar to, but distinct from, the classical "Cartesian dualism" where our minds are a separate substance from our bodies, which is sometimes referred to as "ghost-in-the-machine" dualism. The distinction is that we are not spiritual beings separate from the physical body, but a mixture of both spiritual and physical.

Well, but of course the human mind is a biochemical SOMETHING. As best as we can currently label it, it's fair enough to call it a computer.

The human brain is a biochemical computer, the question at hand is whether or not our mind is the same as a physical brain.

However, there is this pesky aspect of "Self Awareness" to our Meat-based Processor Units (MPU's). Where it comes from, I don't know. Neuroscientists are trying their damnedest to figure it out. Some say it's a natural, non-spiritual by-product of having enough processing and interconnections going on. For now, I can handle that.

Have you read Hofstadter's "Gödel, Escher, Bach" or "I am a Strange Loop"? His take on a description of consciousness is very interesting, even if he doesn't get into the neuroscience of how that might arise in practice.


My important question for you is this: are you a reductive, or non-reductive, physicalist? That is to say, it is quite obvious that you only believe in the physical universe, but do you believe that a physical system (for example, a person) can accurately be described as the sum of it's constituent parts, or do you believe that even purely a physical system can give rise to phenomena that are too complex to be described by the physics of its parts? The latter is the position of Searle, but I think most other physicalists lean towards reductionism. In either case, the direction in which I want take this conversation will be quite different depending on your response.

But I've heard this "quantum" reference thrown in. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means." What do YOU think it means?

I know you were addressing TG, but I agree that quantum mechanics is important for the discussion of consciousness; primarily for its implications about physical causality (as we've previously discussed, at length), and not because I think our minds require a quantum mechanical implication.

Is there some quantum entanglement between the quantum aspect of our minds and the quantum nature of the micro-cosmos that IS the mechanism through which waveforms are made to collapse? (I made this one up)

"Consciousness-causes-collapse" is actually a fairly common and well discussed position.

And it's certainly better than saying it's "Spirit" or "God," which is just a pretense for saying, "I don't know," but by way of throwing a bunch of other ridiculous nonsense into the mix in a failed attempt to distract others (and one's self) from that basic ignorance.

Thank you, oh wise one, for deigning to bestow your great wisdom and knowledge of all things scientific, mathematical, logical, and philosophical to us spiritual peons. ...... Oh. Wait. That's not actually what's been going on in this thread. Nevermind then. What I meant to say was this: If you can't keep your arrogance and your pseudo-intellectual bullying in check, you can just bow right back on out of this thread. If you feel inclined towards discussing interesting philosophical and scientific ideas like a civilized adult, than you're welcome to stay.


CezeN: (a) Because it's the Daily Mail. That's about a step up from linking to the National Enquirer. There are some legitimate reasons to link there, but none of them involve anything that's actually important or that ought to be based in reality. (b) There are significant differences between "impossible", "supernaturally possible", and "technology-sufficiently-advanced". Be precise as to which you mean.

[CezeN]

CezeN: (a) Because it's the Daily Mail. That's about a step up from linking to the National Enquirer. There are some legitimate reasons to link there, but none of them involve anything that's actually important or that ought to be based in reality. (b) There are significant differences between "impossible", "supernaturally possible", and "technology-sufficiently-advanced". Be precise as to which you mean.

A. Regardless, they appeared to have presented a decent summary with a quote or two of the experiment I was referring to. It's not I was linking them for an opinion or disputable information - or anything that factors in their analysis. I was linking them for a factual description of the experiment I was referring to. And, I asked you to tell me why it was wrong "this instance". Not generally. For my purpose, they weren't wrong about anything in this instance.

B. I mean all three, considering that your knowledge/understanding of the world anchors how you put things in each category. Thousands of years ago, people thought it impossible for the world to not be flat. Why? Lack of knowledge. Now it's 2012, it seems impossible to me for a metal paddle to be moving and standing still at the same time. Why? Lack of knowledge. You're saying it's technology-sufficiently-advanced because of the knowledge you have. Since my point is that we don't know what's possible since we don't have all the knowledge in the world - like an omniscient being - then the difference between the three doesn't matter. Since, seemingly contradictory things also appear to fall in the "technology/knowledge of the world-sufficiently-advanced" category. Ultimately, the only person who can say how things accurately fall into each category is an omniscient being. So, the most we can do is put everything into a knowledge-sufficiently-advanced category.

[Tiny genius]

"I don't like to rule things out just because they're impossible" - Nikoli, Ender's Shadow.

"It was like Nikoli said, you couldn't rule out the impossible because you never knew which of your assumptions about what was impossible might turn out, in the real world, to be false" - Bean, Ender's Shadow.

[Boothby]

Quote:
And it's certainly better than saying it's "Spirit" or "God," which is just a pretense for saying, "I don't know," but by way of throwing a bunch of other ridiculous nonsense into the mix in a failed attempt to distract others (and one's self) from that basic ignorance.

Thank you, oh wise one, for deigning to bestow your great wisdom and knowledge of all things scientific, mathematical, logical, and philosophical to us spiritual peons.

EP, please show me where the explanation that "God did it," or "It's Holy Spirit" or "It's God's spirit acting within us" is anything other than what I said.


"I feel such a strong sense of love towards her. I wonder what part of my mind (my brain) is responsible for that feeling of love."

"That love you're feeling is the spirit of Jesus Christ moving through you."

"What do you mean, 'Spirit of Christ'?"

"Um. I don't know. Christ's love. God's love. God's spirit."

"Well, at least tell me what this 'God' and 'Jesus' are, even if you can't tell me what their 'spirit' is (or are)..."

"Well, Jesus was part human being and part God. No, wait. He was all God and part human being. He was born to a virgin. He was killed and then he came back to life. He can read our minds, and he can manipulate matter with his own mind. We show our love for him by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. He loves us, and if we don't love him back the right way, he will lock us in a nasty place and set us on fire"

Like I said.

No disrespect, but what I wrote is, to many, a legitimate, though partial description of Jesus Christ. I intentionally left out the parts where he demands that people who follow him hate their families, or that his intent is to destroy the world. I would have included the part where He condemns homosexuals to being locked in a nasty place and set on fire, but He doesn't actually have anything to say about homosexuality.

[Tiny genius]

Hey, something just occured to me. I'll probably get web-lynched by a bunch of angry radical atheists for it but here goes:

Steve, you say (when arguing against the Bible) that many parts of it are contradictary and so we can't follow the whole thing perfectly right?

The first (and most obvious) poiint is that we're humans and flawed, we can't follow it perfectly.

The second (based on some of this discussion) is that not only can God do things that seem impossible to we of limited knowledge but also these contradictions in the Bible cease to be contradictions on some other level of understanding, call it "Level 1".

[Boothby]

But seriously:

My important question for you is this: are you a reductive, or non-reductive, physicalist? That is to say, it is quite obvious that you only believe in the physical universe, but do you believe that a physical system (for example, a person) can accurately be described as the sum of it's constituent parts, or do you believe that even purely a physical system can give rise to phenomena that are too complex to be described by the physics of its parts?

I'm a reductionalist. A strict physicalist. A person--their "mind," if you would--is the sum of its constituent parts.

However, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "that even purely a physical system can give rise to phenomena that are too complex to be described by the physics of its parts?"

http://science.discovery.com/stories/we ... rocks.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For years, people have been puzzled by a peculiar phenomenon in Racetrack Playa, a desolate section of California's Death Valley. Big and small rocks seem to move spontaneously, gliding across the flat landscape and leaving behind trails. Some travel in pairs, tracking each other so precisely that they leave marks that appear to have been made by car tires. Others wander back and forth alone, covering the length of several football fields.

The physics of the desert/rock/wind system causes the rocks to move. This is too complex to be described by the physics of the rocks....

And I will admit to being utterly AMAZED by the intelligence of my children when their brains were oh-so-tiny, inside those months-old heads. But, after seeing my 65 year old mother lose what I considered to be her self-awareness for long stretches of time after having undergone chemotherapy for cancer, it was pretty obvious that as amazing as intelligence and self-awareness may be, it's all strictly brain chemistry. MPU's.