What is an act of God?

[Sarkus]

The idea that "free-will is an illusion" is nothing more than intellectual discourse.

1) We are not self aware.

I think that pretty much covers all three.

Please explain to me how the idea that "free-will is an illusion" IS more than intellectual discourse.
Then explain how it is (a) counterfactual, (b) fueled by egocentrism, (c) an argument from ignorance.

Then please clarify: are you saying that you think we are not self-aware? If so, how does this counter (or otherwise) the idea of what free-will is (or isn't)?

Merely by stating "1) We are not self aware" hasn't answered any of the questions - unless you can explain how it does - and if you can explain, please do.

 

[Sarkus]

First of all, we have to allow for the premise that God interacts with what we can refer to as objective reality -- if God is to be omnimax.

Okay - I am an atheist. I do not have to allow for any premise which allows God to exist.
If "God" exists then it is outside our Universe and can not act within it.
If "God" can interact with our Universe then he is within the Universe and must abide by all the rules of the universe (thermodynamics etc).
If this is so then "God" is nothing more than an alien being.

Acts of God "are merely subjective views of an objective reality" -- but more must be said. To say "subjective view" also entails our ethical evaluation, our values and preferences show in this. And they are important in how we lead our lives.
...
We do not know objective reality directly (so the premise), thus objective reality doesn't really matter for us. All we can do is view our subjective reality -- within itself.
...
I'm not saying there is no objective reality; I'm saying that since we can't get to it, since we can't make claims about it (as long as we stick to there being an observational distance) -- thus, objective reality doesn't really matter to us.

What does matter though is the stance we will take towards this objective reality. We can't do as if it isn't there (for our sanity depends on the belief that objective reality is consistent!), but neither can we do as if we knew it. The only stance we can then take towards objective reality is an ethical or emotional one; for we cannot take a cognitive one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that the subjective is more important than the objective - that because we can never directly know the objective that we can dismiss it, and the only thing of value / worth / importance is our subjective view of it?

I can not agree with this.

Sure, the subjective view is how we live our life - and obviously varies from person to person - and is obviously important to us, as individuals and as society in the way we lead our lives.
But all the myriad of subjectivity does NOT alter the objective truth.

I see religion, and God, as purely subjective.
And it is because it is purely subjective that you get the variety of religious beliefs.
But when you stumble across something that is far more objective - such as a physical law - there is no/little subjectivity.

There is no objectivity with religion - with "God" - certainly not within our Universe - which to me encompasses everything it is possible to know.

The topic can be summed up in the question: "If you do not know much about something, but know it may come, what will you do when it comes?"

One can never be fully prepared anyway. So it is up to the ethical and emotional stance we will take: will we fear the unknown, will we hate it, will we embrace it, will we be indifferent; will we think it is worthless, will we think it will be superior or inferior to us?

I do not, and will not, disagree that we live in a subjective world / society - and that as such the subjective (emotions, ethics, morals etc) are of vital importance.
But this will not alter the deterministic objective truth.

Survival. Practicality. It is not wise to waste time and energy on things that are counterproductive to one's survival.

And yes, apparently, life is too easy nowadays, this is why people can dwell on things that are "*just* an "intellectual discourse".

Please - society has long since developed past the point where mere survival is uppermost in an individual's mind. Survival is now rightly taken for granted at an individual level, especially in the Western developed world.
And there is nothing wrong with this - there should be no guilt attached to it either.

Now think of what you've said in terms of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Will you end up happy? Or will you even say that yor own happiness doesn't matter to you?

You are continually confusing an understanding of the objective with a removal of the subjective.
Just because someone can see a clearer model of the objective reality (i.e. determinism) does not mean they can remove themselves from the subjective.

You know that caffeine is just a chemical compound.
You know (or can learn) how it reacts with your body.
But you can not stop it reacting with your body.
You can not stop the subjective sensations / feelings etc that the chemical induces.

Furthermore, while it seems subjective to the individual, it is still deterministic, and is still part of the objective reality.

Beware of the day when you will have to experience the consequences of this on your own skin.

Why? Will this change the truth? Will 1+1 suddenly =3 because I'm afraid that it might =2?

Well, this would be so if by "spirituality" we would mean 'something supernatural, unearthly, inexplicable, mystical'. If by "spirituality" you mean some hippie buzz after you're full of LSD, or the extasis of the dervish spinning in circles -- then I think you have a very empoverished understanding of what spirituality is and can be.

To me "spiritual" is merely a label for other experiences - whether that be chemically induced, physically induced etc.
"Spiritual" to me always suggests some external influence outside of the cause-effect relationship.
Whenever I hear / read the term "spiritual" it always smacks of intellectual laziness - the attempt to (often deliberately) cover up a lack of understanding of the reality of what's going on, usually in an attempt to convince people of some "higher purpose".
Often what people see as "spiritual" is utter rubbish, but often there is something going on - but that because the audience or the teacher do not know or want to know, it is given the term "spiritual".

But I digress.

WHY is it IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY to assess what it means to be human?

It is noone's "responsibility" per se, so I apologise for my use of words. What I meant was that no-one else is going to tell us what it means, so if we want to know then it is up to us to discover - so in a way it is "our responsibility".

If they could come on the same plane as humanity, if they would be capable of that -- and they inherently are not, as long as it is man who designs and makes them, and sustains them -- then you could compare humans and robots that way as you propose. Otherwise, we can't compare them that way.

Do not dismiss so easily - as to do so shows a (subconscious?) fear of what it may reveal.
You say "inherently are not" - but offer no reasoning as to why not.

I haven't "placed" humanity anywhere. I have no absolute measures by which I could make a list and place phenomena on it.

Subconsciously you have. Your posts read as though you think humanity is the pinnacle of creation. Given that you are undoubtedly religious, this is understandable. But it is subjective

Not remove, but relativize it. Ever watched any science fiction films that happen in the future? They are a prediction, a theory of what happens when human life is devalued down to chemicals and chemical reactions: a person's life becomes worthless. And this is taking place already.

I think you hold too much store to science FICTION films.
How many SF films have EVER proven to be correct?
Just look at the computers in the 1960s films?

Why do we talk then at all? It is all for naught, nothing more than an "intellectual discourse"?

To me it is mere discourse - to distract me from a laborious day in front of a mounting workload.

And what have you said by this?

About as much as you said in your comment to which it relates

No, even the ""objective reality" of the cause and effect relationship" must be questioned -- when our understanding of the relationship between cause and effect is open to research.

Understanding the relationship between cause and effect will not alter the fact of cause and effect. It will merely improve our understanding of it.
But the cause / effect logic will remain.

Oh? But when we have agreed that objective reality cannot be known, and now you are making claims about it ...?

Knowing that objective reality is governed by cause/effect does not mean that we "know" the objective reality.

As long as you are in your deterministic discourse, you will interpret everything your way, and nothing we say will have the same meaning in your discourse as it has it in ours. All we can do is poke holes into your discourse and search for inconsistencies -- but even this is futile, as those inconsistencies will be evened out deterministically.

All we can ever do is poke holes into other people's understanding.
Sometimes those holes are gaping and unbridgeable.
Othertimes they can be smoothed over.
But the concept of determinism has no holes that I can see.

To talk about free will on the level as you proposed is nonsensical inasmuch as on that level, there is noone to have this free will. There can neither be nor not be free will on that level.

If we look at cells and cells alone, we cannot say anything about the organ they make, we cannot say anything about the functions of the organ as a whole when all we have in sight are a few cells.

Or the analogy with bricks: If we look merely at an individual brick, we can't say anything about the properties of the wall -- for if all we have in sight is a single brick, we do not even know whether it is a part of a wall or not. The concept of wall is indeterminate if all we see is a brick.

Ah - okay - I see what you're saying.
But, as you'd probably expect, I still disagree - or maybe the analogy isn't strong enough.
Determinism isn't a case of reducing everything to the microscopic and beyond. That is, I guess, reductionism - and that certainly would remove the whole.
It is merely stating that every effect has a cause.
In my understanding of determinism, the whole can exist - and does exist - and is just as valid as the smallest building block.
All one needs to consider is the cause / effect relationship.
If one needs to go to the micro level to understand what all the causes are that are driving the macro then so be it - but it still allows for the macro.

But on the matter of "free-will" - even at the macro level this just doesn't fit the cause/effect relationship. You are trying to introduce a cause from nothing. This cause must have had its own cause, which must have had its own.
Nothing is created from nothing.
Just ask - "why did I make this decision" - and you come up with reasons. Then ask - "what caused these reasons" - and then "what caused those?". Cause and effect all the way back.

Uh. To talk about choice on the quantum level -- either as present or as absent -- is as nonsensical as to talk about walls if all you have in sight is a single brick.

Okay - this was me trying to cut-off any claim that the quantum uncertainty principle can lead to "free-will". If you're not going down that path then please ignore this for the time being.

[/quote]If all you have in sight is a single brick, you cannot make valid inferences about what the wall is like, and it would be nonsensical to make such inferences in the first place. For the concept of wall is indeterminate if all we see is a brick.[/quote]This is where your analogy is weak. Why can we not see the wall, then in trying to understand the wall look at the individual bricks? By seeing the wall as a whole, and the bricks in detail, we can learn far more, no?

But beware of the day when someone comes and puts a gun to your head, or when life turns ugly for you.

This is an argument from fear -- and it is a valid one. Maybe one day you will see what I mean.

Sorry to get a bit irate at this point - but what the f**k has this to do with anything.
Who's to say that life hasn't turned "ugly" for me, that life hasn't held a gun to my head in the past, or even now?
You do not know me from Adam.
No "argument from fear" is valid - they are logical fallacies by definition.


Determinism merely states that for every effect there must be a cause.
It will not change a person's "subjective" experience of the cause.
But their subjective experience becomes a cause for another effect, as it all builds up within the person.
Determinism doesn't remove "subjectivity".
No two people are the same - hence experience is subjective - but each person's experience is governed by determinism.
It is only subjective compared to another person's experience, which is in itself governed by determinism.

 

[§outh§tar]

If "God" exists then it is outside our Universe and can not act within it.
If "God" can interact with our Universe then he is within the Universe and must abide by all the rules of the universe (thermodynamics etc).

Surely you don't tell God to abide by His own rules..

Please explain to me how the idea that "free-will is an illusion" IS more than intellectual discourse.
Then explain how it is (a) counterfactual, (b) fueled by egocentrism, (c) an argument from ignorance.

Then please clarify: are you saying that you think we are not self-aware? If so, how does this counter (or otherwise) the idea of what free-will is (or isn't)?

Merely by stating "1) We are not self aware" hasn't answered any of the questions - unless you can explain how it does - and if you can explain, please do.

I would love to talk about the problems with that statement but unfortunately I have done so almost to the point of boredom. See the 'Can we think thread?' in the philosophy subforum and the 'You HAVE to believe' thread in here (the latter part of it) for my arguments. The second part is also accounted for in there. I don't mean to appear lazy but from the size of those threads I hope you will understand how tedious it is to begin explaining from scratch all over again. Ask water, she's smarter than I am and can probably condense it for you. I trust her.

Just wanted to add this if it helps any: Cause and effect is merely the way we percieve things, not necessarily the way things are. If objective reality is indeed governed by causality, we cannot ascertain. Tis not good practice to make such generalizations about reality based on what we have perceived this short time on earth.

"Let us be honest with ourselves. In the presence of countless mysteries; standing beneath the boundless heaven sown thick with constellations; knowing that each grain of sand, each leaf, each blade of grass, asks of every mind the answerless question; knowing that the simplest thing defies solution; feeling that we deal with the superficial and the relative, and that we are forever eluded by the real, the absolute, -- let us admit the limitations of our minds, and let us have the courage and the candor to say: We do not know."

- Robert Ingersoll​

 

[water]

I am so sorry for the late reply. I had the post on my computer, and forgot about it.

First of all, we have to allow for the premise that God interacts with what we can refer to as objective reality -- if God is to be omnimax.

Okay - I am an atheist. I do not have to allow for any premise which allows God to exist.
If "God" exists then it is outside our Universe and can not act within it.
If "God" can interact with our Universe then he is within the Universe and must abide by all the rules of the universe (thermodynamics etc).
If this is so then "God" is nothing more than an alien being.

Then we are not talking about the same god. I'm talking about the God of the Bible, you seem to be referring to some philosophical construct that is not the God of the Bible.

Acts of God "are merely subjective views of an objective reality" -- but more must be said. To say "subjective view" also entails our ethical evaluation, our values and preferences show in this. And they are important in how we lead our lives.
...
We do not know objective reality directly (so the premise), thus objective reality doesn't really matter for us. All we can do is view our subjective reality -- within itself.
...
I'm not saying there is no objective reality; I'm saying that since we can't get to it, since we can't make claims about it (as long as we stick to there being an observational distance) -- thus, objective reality doesn't really matter to us.

What does matter though is the stance we will take towards this objective reality. We can't do as if it isn't there (for our sanity depends on the belief that objective reality is consistent!), but neither can we do as if we knew it. The only stance we can then take towards objective reality is an ethical or emotional one; for we cannot take a cognitive one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that the subjective is more important than the objective - that because we can never directly know the objective that we can dismiss it, and the only thing of value / worth / importance is our subjective view of it?

Yes, in effect, the subjective is more important *to us* than the objective.
But this doesn't mean that the objective is without any value / worth / importance to us -- in fact, it seems crucial that we take a certain stance towards it; like I said before.
This stance can be that of pessmism, helplessness, negativism, fear; belitteling; awe; ...

But all the myriad of subjectivity does NOT alter the objective truth.

What do you mean by that?
Are you perhaps refering to such an example: "Most Westerns prefer to live very comfortably. Thus, this is objectively true."

I see religion, and God, as purely subjective.

This is due to your specific defintion of God, yes.
But I think God is experienced subjectively, this does not mean that God doesn't exist objectively.

But when you stumble across something that is far more objective - such as a physical law - there is no/little subjectivity.

This is so for a practical reason. Few people experience themselves as a mechanism working by pyscial laws. You say "I'm going to go to lunch", you don't say "I'm going to refill my energy reserves".

The topic can be summed up in the question: "If you do not know much about something, but know it may come, what will you do when it comes?"

One can never be fully prepared anyway. So it is up to the ethical and emotional stance we will take: will we fear the unknown, will we hate it, will we embrace it, will we be indifferent; will we think it is worthless, will we think it will be superior or inferior to us?

I do not, and will not, disagree that we live in a subjective world / society - and that as such the subjective (emotions, ethics, morals etc) are of vital importance.
But this will not alter the deterministic objective truth.

Again, what is the problem here? If we can't know objective truth -- then what does this mean for us?

Survival. Practicality. It is not wise to waste time and energy on things that are counterproductive to one's survival.

And yes, apparently, life is too easy nowadays, this is why people can dwell on things that are "*just* an "intellectual discourse".

Please - society has long since developed past the point where mere survival is uppermost in an individual's mind. Survival is now rightly taken for granted at an individual level, especially in the Western developed world.
And there is nothing wrong with this - there should be no guilt attached to it either.

And this is where I think you are gravely, gravely wrong -- to take survival for granted, and rightly so?!
To take for granted that you can live as you wish, regardless whether you have work and a place to live?
Nothing should ever be taken for granted.

Now think of what you've said in terms of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Will you end up happy? Or will you even say that yor own happiness doesn't matter to you?

You are continually confusing an understanding of the objective with a removal of the subjective.

Just because someone can see a clearer model of the objective reality (i.e. determinism) does not mean they can remove themselves from the subjective.

You know that caffeine is just a chemical compound.
You know (or can learn) how it reacts with your body.
But you can not stop it reacting with your body.
You can not stop the subjective sensations / feelings etc that the chemical induces.

Furthermore, while it seems subjective to the individual, it is still deterministic, and is still part of the objective reality.

And? Your point? Of course it is part of objective reality. So what?

Beware of the day when you will have to experience the consequences of this on your own skin.

Why? Will this change the truth? Will 1+1 suddenly =3 because I'm afraid that it might =2?

Beware of the day when you'll find out that you should not take survival for granted.

To me "spiritual" is merely a label for other experiences - whether that be chemically induced, physically induced etc.
"Spiritual" to me always suggests some external influence outside of the cause-effect relationship.

If objective reality functions by the principle of cause and effect, how could anything be outside of this prinicple? If subjective reality is our interpretation of objective reality, we should assume that subjective reality works by cause-effect relationships as well. They may not be the same as those of objective reality, but they are cause-effect relationships nonetheless.

Whenever I hear / read the term "spiritual" it always smacks of intellectual laziness - the attempt to (often deliberately) cover up a lack of understanding of the reality of what's going on, usually in an attempt to convince people of some "higher purpose".
Often what people see as "spiritual" is utter rubbish, but often there is something going on - but that because the audience or the teacher do not know or want to know, it is given the term "spiritual".

Then you are confusing the rational with the ethical.

WHY is it IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY to assess what it means to be human?

It is noone's "responsibility" per se, so I apologise for my use of words. What I meant was that no-one else is going to tell us what it means, so if we want to know then it is up to us to discover - so in a way it is "our responsibility".

We, humans, bound to subjective knowledge, should discover objective reality?

If they could come on the same plane as humanity, if they would be capable of that -- and they inherently are not, as long as it is man who designs and makes them, and sustains them -- then you could compare humans and robots that way as you propose. Otherwise, we can't compare them that way.

Do not dismiss so easily - as to do so shows a (subconscious?) fear of what it may reveal.

You infer that fear. The only fear -- but it is much more a disgust -- that I have is that of cognitive/rational reductionism. As if the ethical and the emotive are something that is not essential to humans, and should be get rid of.

You say "inherently are not" - but offer no reasoning as to why not.

I have: "-- and they inherently are not, as long as it is man who designs and makes them, and sustains them --" robots are not self-sufficient beings that have the same kind of functions as living beings. Are we to measure living beings by their mechanical copies? Are mechanical copies to be a better example of living beings than the living originials?

I haven't "placed" humanity anywhere. I have no absolute measures by which I could make a list and place phenomena on it.

Subconsciously you have. Your posts read as though you think humanity is the pinnacle of creation.

My, what you read into my words.
If anything, you think that robots are the pinnacle of creation.

Given that you are undoubtedly religious, this is understandable.

I'm not religious, and don't patronize me.

But it is subjective

AND SO IS EVERYTHING YOU SAY.

Not remove, but relativize it. Ever watched any science fiction films that happen in the future? They are a prediction, a theory of what happens when human life is devalued down to chemicals and chemical reactions: a person's life becomes worthless. And this is taking place already.

I think you hold too much store to science FICTION films.
How many SF films have EVER proven to be correct?
Just look at the computers in the 1960s films?

I said: " ... a theory of what happens when human life is devalued down to chemicals and chemical reactions: a person's life becomes worthless. And this is taking place already."

Really, according to you, why should people live? We are mere chemicals after all, worthless.
There is nothjing wrong with killing a person, it is equally meaningful to live, or not to live. People are just subjective ...

Why do we talk then at all? It is all for naught, nothing more than an "intellectual discourse"?

To me it is mere discourse - to distract me from a laborious day in front of a mounting workload.

Yes, "mere discourse". Such a stance can be held if survival is taken for granted.

Understanding the relationship between cause and effect will not alter the fact of cause and effect. It will merely improve our understanding of it.
But the cause / effect logic will remain.

QM thinks differently. An effect can supposedly precede a cause, or so I've heard. You'll have to ask in the physics forum.

Knowing that objective reality is governed by cause/effect does not mean that we "know" the objective reality.

It does mean that. If objective reality cannot be known, then it cannot be known, and everything is just subjective speculation, period.

All we can ever do is poke holes into other people's understanding.
Sometimes those holes are gaping and unbridgeable.
Othertimes they can be smoothed over.
But the concept of determinism has no holes that I can see.

Oh joy. Go to the physics forum. Chaos theory, QM.

To talk about free will on the level as you proposed is nonsensical inasmuch as on that level, there is noone to have this free will. There can neither be nor not be free will on that level.

If we look at cells and cells alone, we cannot say anything about the organ they make, we cannot say anything about the functions of the organ as a whole when all we have in sight are a few cells.

Or the analogy with bricks: If we look merely at an individual brick, we can't say anything about the properties of the wall -- for if all we have in sight is a single brick, we do not even know whether it is a part of a wall or not. The concept of wall is indeterminate if all we see is a brick.

Ah - okay - I see what you're saying.
But, as you'd probably expect, I still disagree - or maybe the analogy isn't strong enough.
Determinism isn't a case of reducing everything to the microscopic and beyond. That is, I guess, reductionism - and that certainly would remove the whole.

It is merely stating that every effect has a cause.
In my understanding of determinism, the whole can exist - and does exist - and is just as valid as the smallest building block.
All one needs to consider is the cause / effect relationship.
If one needs to go to the micro level to understand what all the causes are that are driving the macro then so be it - but it still allows for the macro.

And this is what is wrong.

To assume that what drives the micro is somehow deciding for what drives the macro is merely an assumption, for one. What is true for the micro isn't necessary true for the macro.
And for two, you are reducing being a human to being a chemical soup.

But on the matter of "free-will" - even at the macro level this just doesn't fit the cause/effect relationship. You are trying to introduce a cause from nothing. This cause must have had its own cause, which must have had its own.
Nothing is created from nothing.
Just ask - "why did I make this decision" - and you come up with reasons. Then ask - "what caused these reasons" - and then "what caused those?". Cause and effect all the way back.

You don't want to accept that not everything works by the cause and effect relationships as you propose them.
You are completely disregarding that humans have values and preferences, upon which they act, and that these values and preferences stand there as axioms, starting points, themselves being uncaused. We can say they have been caused holistically, but the problem of holistic causality is that it renders the whole principle of "If A, then B" meaningless -- as a multitude of "causes", interacting with eachother, produces a certain "effect", whereby the "causes" and their interactions are impossible to identify with analytical exactness. Say "holistic causality" and you have said as much as nothing.

If all you have in sight is a single brick, you cannot make valid inferences about what the wall is like, and it would be nonsensical to make such inferences in the first place. For the concept of wall is indeterminate if all we see is a brick.

This is where your analogy is weak. Why can we not see the wall, then in trying to understand the wall look at the individual bricks? By seeing the wall as a whole, and the bricks in detail, we can learn far more, no?

No. You think atomistically, thinking that the functioning of the whole goes by the same principles as the funcitoning of the parts of the whole. I can walk -- my organs per se do not walk; asking about the concept of walking in regards only to my liver or heart is nonsensical.

You are willing to discard the functioning of the whole because the funcitoning of the parts is easier to describe.

Secondly, we can only have one in sight: Either the whole, or the part. Either the wall, or the brick. Either walking, or the heart.

The connection between the whole and its parts is INFERRED, a mere theory.
What is true for the part isn't necessarily true for the whole, and vice versa.

But beware of the day when someone comes and puts a gun to your head, or when life turns ugly for you.

This is an argument from fear -- and it is a valid one. Maybe one day you will see what I mean.

Sorry to get a bit irate at this point - but what the f**k has this to do with anything.
Who's to say that life hasn't turned "ugly" for me, that life hasn't held a gun to my head in the past, or even now?
You do not know me from Adam.
No "argument from fear" is valid - they are logical fallacies by definition.

I'm trying to tell you that it is wrong to take survival for granted. I'm not sure you see the implications deriving from taking survival for granted.

Determinism merely states that for every effect there must be a cause.
It will not change a person's "subjective" experience of the cause.
But their subjective experience becomes a cause for another effect, as it all builds up within the person.
Determinism doesn't remove "subjectivity".
No two people are the same - hence experience is subjective - but each person's experience is governed by determinism.
It is only subjective compared to another person's experience, which is in itself governed by determinism.

I'm sorry. And? What can I do with this theory? What consequences does it have in my life? If science is to embrace it -- what pursuits should follow? What suggestions should science then make to governements? How should governements apply the theory of determinism? What are the practical implications of determinism? If determinism is the objective truth, how should we direct our ethics so as to live in accord with determinism, and not let ourselves be mislead by the subjective?

A scientific theory that has no application in real life, moreover, a scietific theory that has no aspirations to be applied, ever, is useless.


* * *

Just wanted to add this if it helps any: Cause and effect is merely the way we percieve things, not necessarily the way things are. If objective reality is indeed governed by causality, we cannot ascertain. Tis not good practice to make such generalizations about reality based on what we have perceived this short time on earth.

EXACTLY.

 

[water]

This is still atomistic thinking that says that a unit has meaning all by itself, regardless of context.

Context requires arbitrary interpretation. Arbitrary interpretation skews truth.
The raw information we have is void of this contamination.

"Raw information" is an ideal, the Holy Grail of science.

The savant can't survive all by himself.

Who is to blame?

Blame? Certain charactersitcs/traits/abilities/disabilities are such that disable the organism who has them to be unable to survive.

Again, atomistic demands that are impossible to fulfill.

If the brick cannot give strength, then the foundation cannot give strength.

?
The problem of "atomism" here is in the assumption that the whole functions by the same prinicples as its parts, and that what is true for parts, must necessarily be true for the whole.

No, and this is a frequent mistake to make. As long as there is observation, there is the observer and the observed, the subject and the object of observation. As long as there are these two, the observational distance remains.

No. Not in our case, there needn't be. For there is no "observer" or "obeservee" in our case - there is no "I". Rather we observe experience; we experience experience. The distance is only percieved but is not there, it is only a mirage.

Prove it to be so.

Society is the corruptor of man, as you will soon discover.

Consider the brick and wall analogy. What is true for the brick, isn't necessarily true for the wall, and vice versa.

If we had any free will (and we don't), society has already taken it away from us.

P.r.o.v.e. i.t.

These things are merely rude awakenings to the fact that we own nothing, we earn nothing, and we can have nothing.

And then comes the important question: What do you do now? You have learned that we own nothing, we earn nothing, and we can have nothing. And now what? Do you just sit there and die?

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return."

- Genesis 3:19

From dust to dust. What room is there, for ego?

More than enough, I'm afraid.

You have no impression of what my fists can do.

Shall I punch you in the face?

Luh-vely.

Do remind me of what free will means to you and whether or not we have it.

1. We have free will.
2. It is the ability to make decisions, making them, and acting on them or wanting to act on them.

But also see the Free will thread that evolved in the meantime.

Alright. Then tell me why do you think we are egoists.

Any man who kowtows to society and thinks himself to be independent and free, why, he is a fool first and then an egomaniac. Why else should he believe he has autonomy when society strips him of all individuality and all latitude and leaves him a pup desperate to suckle the vain comforts of community. And these are the seven vices: Pride, Covetousness, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, Sloth.

But you have said before:

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return."

- Genesis 3:19

From dust to dust. What room is there, for ego?

 

[§outh§tar]

water,

It seems as if you are arguing against elevating the bricks over the wall. But did you know the wall is not the whole, but rather a part culled from the whole? Therefore to pretend the wall is itself a whole (ie. that it tells us anything about 'itself') would be to commit the same fallacy. Either the whole is objective reality or the parts are objective realities. Our perception of parts or individualities instead of a whole is a biological limitation.

For example, when you see 'three apples' arranged in any formation, you see them without needing to count them out. But for 99 apples arranged (especially haphazardly), you no longer have this perception of a whole, but rather of parts. Some savantes are so much more intelligent as to be able to see 111 toothpicks as a 'oneness', so that if they were to topple and fall on the ground haphazardly, they would immediately be identified as such.

And here goes my rant against the thinker. The perception of a thinker commits the same error: assuming the self is a 'whole'. This sort of thing counts as hypostatization. The problem of assuming 'a thinker' is howerver more complex than the brickwall metaphor. Perception of our world as a reality consisting of individuals is probably nature's way of making sure we don't get muddled ourselves up in coping with society. In Christianity, there is this (absurd) theory that God is outside of time, 'looking' in on reality. Ignoring the numerous errors, we see that any such observer would see the 'bigger picture' and scoff at any notion of linear causality as merely a pitfall of perception.

The means by which human beings insist they are not chemical soups is most baffling to me however, especially considering the irony involved. I'll go into this later when I finally post my reply. After our online conversation much of what I said became old news and I need to go do some major editing.

 

[§outh§tar]

"Raw information" is an ideal, the Holy Grail of science.

I define 'raw information' in my response. Just know for now that I don't equate 'raw information' with reality.

Blame? Certain charactersitcs/traits/abilities/disabilities are such that disable the organism who has them to be unable to survive.

Score one against the notion of the human being as individual, or automaton. Do you remember us talking about how society necessarily influences our EVERY thought - outside of free will?

?
The problem of "atomism" here is in the assumption that the whole functions by the same prinicples as its parts, and that what is true for parts, must necessarily be true for the whole.

Consider the brick and wall analogy. What is true for the brick, isn't necessarily true for the wall, and vice versa.

This is not the 'atomism' I advocate. I do not say the whole functions by the same principles as its parts, but rather that the whole is influenced FULLY by the parts. When the rain beats on the wall, the bricks decay, and so the wall crumbles. Society is the rain that beats on the neurons. Like I said above, this brickwall analogy is too weak to use on humans.

Prove it to be so.

All in good time.

And then comes the important question: What do you do now? You have learned that we own nothing, we earn nothing, and we can have nothing. And now what? Do you just sit there and die?

Nature impels us, like Adam, to want to do something. And so she creates the inclination for society, by which territoriality can foster into assumptions of 'rightful ownership of property', inheritance, and so on. Outside of society, where the feral child lives unblemished, these concepts are correctly meaningless.

You don't sit there and die. At least, you don't pretend to be something you're not.

1. We have free will.
2. It is the ability to make decisions, making them, and acting on them or wanting to act on them.

But also see the Free will thread that evolved in the meantime.

How many times have I argued that the prima facie perception of #2 in no way confirms #2? I think Libet did a fine job of smashing the concept of human beings as individuals/automatons. There is no self, no 'we', to be pointed to - reification again.

Saying we have the ability to make decisions and we want to act on them [bla bla] necessarily implies that this 'we' indeed does know how to make decisions etc. The 'Can we think?' thread shows that this assumption is anything but 'self evident'. Apart from the biological impossibility, there is also the fact that everything we perceive to think independently and form an opinion on independently is indisputably a result of environment and culture. With these two behemoths, nature and environment, dictating all, what room can there possibly be for ego?

But you have said before: What room is there, for ego?

Whose ego?

 

[water]

It seems as if you are arguing against elevating the bricks over the wall. But did you know the wall is not the whole, but rather a part culled from the whole? Therefore to pretend the wall is itself a whole (ie. that it tells us anything about 'itself') would be to commit the same fallacy. Either the whole is objective reality or the parts are objective realities. Our perception of parts or individualities instead of a whole is a biological limitation.

Ponder:

Differentiation is an illusion. For something to exist as separate it is only necessary to name it.

The way parts exist depends on how we have conceptualized them. Parts are not a matter of course, they are not self-evident.

Note the famous example of the American Indians upon first seeing men riding horses -- as the Spaniards came: They thought what we consider a rider and his horse to be one thing. They were startled as they saw the rider dismounting the horse, and noth were still fine and well, no blood.


In the light of the above, you should see that "Either the whole is objective reality or the parts are objective realities." is a fallacy. Both what we consider the whole, as well as what we consider parts are objective reality.

For example, when you see 'three apples' arranged in any formation, you see them without needing to count them out. But for 99 apples arranged (especially haphazardly), you no longer have this perception of a whole, but rather of parts. Some savantes are so much more intelligent as to be able to see 111 toothpicks as a 'oneness', so that if they were to topple and fall on the ground haphazardly, they would immediately be identified as such.

Can a savant count the stars ...

And here goes my rant against the thinker. The perception of a thinker commits the same error: assuming the self is a 'whole'. This sort of thing counts as hypostatization. The problem of assuming 'a thinker' is howerver more complex than the brickwall metaphor.

I think the misleading comes from equating "whole" and "entity". To an extent, the two concepts have the same meaning, but "whole" implies also a static, a finiteness (this notion is then popularly resolved with fancy patch-ups like "dynamic equilibrium").

Perception of our world as a reality consisting of individuals is probably nature's way of making sure we don't get muddled ourselves up in coping with society.

Or, what I find to be more likely, "Perception of our world as a reality consisting of individuals" is probably a natural consequence of speciation/differentiation of phenomena. A primitive organism that distinguished between potential food and potential non-food, and ingested ("ingested" is an idealization here) only potential food (such a conclusion we can only make ex post, of course), survived, while an organism "ingesting" anything did not survive. Simplified, many many years later, an early homind saw that it is beneficient for him if he doesn't approach a sabertooth with the same affection as he approached a member of his tribe; he also learned that not all mushrooms and fruits are good for him. He differentiated, based on learning.
That's differentiation in a nutshell. We do it because it seems useful.

nature's way of making sure we don't get muddled ourselves up in coping with society.

That's bad causality logic, you know. As if nature knew in advance what will come out.
(Whew, creationist thinking is so present in scientific theories!!)

In Christianity, there is this (absurd) theory that God is outside of time, 'looking' in on reality. Ignoring the numerous errors, we see that any such observer would see the 'bigger picture' and scoff at any notion of linear causality as merely a pitfall of perception.

What you say might be true. But note: Christianity stands with God's love, and falls without it. If God weren't loving, He'd surely scoff.

The means by which human beings insist they are not chemical soups is most baffling to me however, especially considering the irony involved.

That we are chemical soups is a statement of biology. Do you claim that biology is all there is to us, that biological explanations are essential to what it means to be a human?

Score one against the notion of the human being as individual, or automaton. Do you remember us talking about how society necessarily influences our EVERY thought - outside of free will?

1. Society can't exist without individuals.
2. Free will can't operate in a vacuum
3. Do you believe that in order to have free will, we would have to 1. be able to make our own option, and 2. choose between them?

This is not the 'atomism' I advocate. I do not say the whole functions by the same principles as its parts, but rather that the whole is influenced FULLY by the parts. When the rain beats on the wall, the bricks decay, and so the wall crumbles.

That's backwards.

Differentiation is an illusion. For something to exist as separate it is only necessary to name it.

The whole isn't "influenced by its parts" -- this is what differentiation leads us to believe about the whole. As if the parts existed at first, and then the whole.
(And the way we build walls NOWADAYS does enforce the notion that the whole is made of parts!)

But even if we think this first-parts-then-whole way, we should see the logical quagmire: There is no whole without the parts. Take one single part: How is it, when the whole isn't there yet, to influence the whole? It can't, for there is nothing to influence yet.
The parts don't just make the whole -- we also must account for the force that made the parts into the whole; in this case, the wall. In a finished wall, one decaying brick can affect the whole wall only because the brick has been placed there.

You are accounting for the bricks, but not for them making up the wall -- that took an external effort that is not native to the bricks.

Even if you think like an atomist, you come so far that you must concede that there is more to a wall than merely bricks.

Nature impels us, like Adam, to want to do something. And so she creates the inclination for society, by which territoriality can foster into assumptions of 'rightful ownership of property', inheritance, and so on.

"Nature creates"? Huh? Nature has intentions, plans?
Really? Nature is God?
Poof?

Outside of society, where the feral child lives unblemished, these concepts are correctly meaningless.

You don't sit there and die. At least, you don't pretend to be something you're not.

In order to be able to know you are pretending to be something you are not, you first have to know who you are.

To say that man's only true identity is that as feral children have it -- is at least inconsistent.

The feral child does have human parents, and for the humans to become parents, they had to be together somehow. Unless you wish to say that the natural state of humans is to live solitary, mate, and then the mother abandons the child to the wild animals to raise it. Is this what you are saying?

To say the least, that would be a very rare way for a species to organize its life. Granted, it wouldn't be so exceptional: there is a bird who lays eggs into nests of other birds, and then these birds raise foreign offspring. (I don't know the English name though, maybe someone can help me out here.)

How many times have I argued that the prima facie perception of #2 in no way confirms #2? I think Libet did a fine job of smashing the concept of human beings as individuals/automatons. There is no self, no 'we', to be pointed to - reification again.

Surely, if all you have in sight is a single brick, you don't see the wall.

Saying we have the ability to make decisions and we want to act on them [bla bla] necessarily implies that this 'we' indeed does know how to make decisions etc. The 'Can we think?' thread shows that this assumption is anything but 'self evident'. Apart from the biological impossibility, there is also the fact that everything we perceive to think independently and form an opinion on independently is indisputably a result of environment and culture. With these two behemoths, nature and environment, dictating all, what room can there possibly be for ego?

We can't exist in a vacuum. We eat food -- matter that seems extraneous to our body. We pick up discourses -- matters that seems extraneous to our thought.

Are you saying that in order to be considered as free and independent, we'd have to be able to live in a vacuum?

Whose ego?

Uh.

 

[Sarkus]

If "God" exists then it is outside our Universe and can not act within it.
If "God" can interact with our Universe then he is within the Universe and must abide by all the rules of the universe (thermodynamics etc).

Surely you don't tell God to abide by His own rules..

I think you miss my point....
This was countering the supposed "logic" behind the proof of God's existence....

If God has interacted with our Universe then it is perceptible. For if it is an imperceptible interaction then it is as irrelevant as anything else that is imperceptible.

If it is perceptible then it must be able to be observed.

If it can be observed it will either obey the current known laws of physics / chemistry, or it will stick out like a sore thumb as an exception.

If it does stick out as an exception to the known laws then the current laws will be deemed to be incomplete as we will have observed something that does not fit.

And as such the current laws can not be used in any way to logically prove the existence of God, as was seemingly done.


So there are 4 choices:
God does not interact with our Universe - in which case God is an irrelevancy.
God imperceptibly interacts with our Universe - in which case God is an irrelevancy.
God perceptibly interacts with our Universe but obeys the current understanding of the laws of this universe.
God perceptibly interacts with our Universe but contradicts the current laws, thus invalidating them for use in any logical proof of God's existence - as the current understanding is obviously not accounting for all observations / perceptions.

You can not have it any other way.
If God perceptibly interacts counter to any law of this Universe that you claim he/she/it created, then it becomes an observation within our Universe - and thus will help define the laws of our Universe.
Otherwise we will end up with laws that say "XYZ... except when God intervenes - and then anything goes."

And this is where I think you are gravely, gravely wrong -- to take survival for granted, and rightly so?!
To take for granted that you can live as you wish, regardless whether you have work and a place to live?
Nothing should ever be taken for granted.

Why am I "gravely, gravely wrong"?
If I die, I die. There's F-all I can do about it.
I enjoy my life and I'm certainly not going to foolishly risk it.
I'm happy at work and have a place to live.
Why am I not allowed to do things purely for pleasure (e.g. intellectual discourse), as you suggest?
When things have gone bad I have adapted. When they go bad again (and I know they will) I will adapt.

I don't take for granted that I can live as I wish, though.
I take for granted that I can live as best I can, and that I will survive.
As soon as I don't survive then it becomes irrelevant anyway.

I'm trying to tell you that it is wrong to take survival for granted. I'm not sure you see the implications deriving from taking survival for granted.

No - I don't see the implications.
Please can you elaborate? Why is it wrong?
When I go to bed, I expect to wake up tomorrow morning.
To me that is taking survival for granted.
I'm sure if I reach old age, or become extremely ill, then I will not to take it for granted, but at the moment, in my current situation, I do - and I can't see why that is wrong, or what the implications are for doing so?