Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 01:20pm PT
|
That's the whole point... it is perceived as absurd (foolish) because it is and in the end you must believe anyway.
And finally, how else would your belief attain the level of faith unless it were unbelievable as rational discourse? For what else is faith?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 02:04pm PT
|
Belief and faith only go so far.
Proof is the final result.
God exists and has been proven since time immemorial .....
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 02:10pm PT
|
are you a mathematician, werner? if you can give us a mathematical proof for the existence of god, i believe that would clinch it, although it would probably take you awhile to get it all explained across. never fear, though. if it's proven, it'll come across sooner or later.
on the other hand, if you don't have a good mathematical proof, it could well mean that your god does not exist within of the realm of mathematics. this could make you a child of a lesser god, which i have no quarrel with. i think i'm one as well.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 02:16pm PT
|
Tony Bird
" it could well mean "
" this could make you "
This means you don't know and are ultimately guessing.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 03:20pm PT
|
wikipedia--a lite answer for every query. and i do believe werner is running out of sass.
the egyptian soul would be conducted to the scale of judgement. the deceased's heart would be placed on one plate, and on the other was a feather, provided by the sky goddess, nut. if your heart was lighter than the feather, you would be conducted to the very pleasant afterlife, closely resembling the good life along the nile in those days. but if it was heavier, there was this nasty crocodile-headed dog that would gobble it up posthaste, and that would be the end of you.
so interesting that god didn't butt the pharoah out and give the best land in the middle east to his chosen people. instead, they roamed around the desert for years, finally settling for an only slightly arable strip south of much more desirable lebanon, which they immediately decided was their promised land. that lesser god again, werner.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 03:39pm PT
|
You're still guessing and speculating both about me or God.
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Tahoe City/Talmont , CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 04:09pm PT
|
God exists and has been proven since time immemorial .....
Your guessing again Werner.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 04:54pm PT
|
No you're guessing and you will keep guessing that will be true in your next post.
I made an absolute fact that is absolutely TRUE in the past, present and the future.
Since you don't know what God is you're the mental speculator.
God has been proven since time immemorial.
That is fact!
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 05:39pm PT
|
Some folks use the circular argument that the Bible ,because it is the word of God, (although written by men) proves the existence of God- quite bizarre.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 05:47pm PT
|
I never use the Bible.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 05:49pm PT
|
I said "some" people, not all.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 05:51pm PT
|
A rigid western intellectual dichotomy is prevalent in these threads.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 05:58pm PT
|
Don't worry.
Jesus Christ is bonafide, and has been so accepted by all the great learned sages .....
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 06:03pm PT
|
Those great learned sages must be the great learned sages that believe in the divinity of JC.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 09:57pm PT
|
The following discussion, involving some of the world's leading scientists and philosophers of mind (most of them are scientists as well), is not terribly convincing, but it's interesting to see where the professionals stand on such interesting subjects like material reductionism and physicalism.
--
Naturalism and its problems
The thesis of physicalism is that the mind is part of the material (or physical) world. Such a position faces the problem that the mind has certain properties that no other material thing possesses. This does not automatically rule out material reductionism, but it does insist that Physicalism explain how it is possible said properties can nonetheless emerge from a material thing. The project of providing such an explanation - fruitless as it has so far proved - is commonly referred to as the "naturalization of the mental."
Two crucial problems that Physicalism has not, and is unlikely to ever get past, involve the existence of qualia and the nature of intentionality.
Qualia
Many mental states have the unique property of being experienced subjectively in different ways by different individuals. For example, it is characteristic of the mind/body state of pain that it hurts (itself a subjective term). Moreover, the sensation of pain between two individuals may not be identical, and in fact can vary considerably. Of course there is no objective method of measuring pain, or of describing exactly how it feels to hurt. There remains a glaring and so far insuperable problem with any claim or explanation stating that the brain “creates” pain. To wit: Consider the exact same “efficient cause,” for instance a hammer to the finger, and how it can product an undeniably real phenomenon (pain) that is experienced in radically different ways by people with DNA that is identical down to the percentages of a one hundred thousands of one percent.
Philosophers and neuroscientists wonder where these experiences (like pain) come from. Nothing indicates that a neural or functional state can be accompanied or can produce anything such as a pain experience. Often the point is formulated as follows: the existence of cerebral events, in and of themselves, cannot explain why they are accompanied by these corresponding qualitative experiences. The puzzle of why many cerebral processes occur with an accompanying experiential aspect in consciousness remains so far impossible to explain by way of reductionism.
It also seems to many that science will eventually have to explain such experiences. This follows from the logic of reductive explanations. If I try to explain a phenomenon reductively (e.g., water), I also have to explain why the phenomenon has all of the properties that it has (e.g., fluidity, transparency). In the case of mental states, this means that there needs to be an explanation of why they have the property of being experienced in a certain way, which cannot be explained away biologically or atomically. The problem of explaining the introspective, first-person aspects of mental states, and consciousness in general, in terms of third-person quantitative neuroscience is called the explanatory gap.
There are several different views of the nature of this gap among contemporary scientists and philosophers of mind. David Chalmers and the early Frank Jackson interpret the gap as ontological in nature: that is, they maintain that qualia can never be explained by science because physicalism is entirely false. There are two separate categories involved and one cannot be reduced, or posited to have "caused" the other because there is no experimental evidence to support such a claim.
An alternative view is taken by philosophers such as Thomas Nagel andColin McGinn. According to them, the gap is epistemological in nature. For Nagel, science is not yet able to explain subjective experience because it has not yet arrived at the level or kind of knowledge that is required. We are not even able to formulate the problem coherently. For McGinn, on other hand, the problem is one of permanent and inherent biological limitations. We are not able to resolve the explanatory gap because the realm of subjective experiences is cognitively closed to us in the same manner that quantum physics is cognitively closed to elephants.
Intentionality
John Searle - one of the most influential philosophers of mind, proponent of biological naturalism (Berkeley 2002)
Intentionality is the capacity of mental states to be directed towards (about) or be in relation with something in the external world. This property of mental states entails that they have contents and semantic referents and can therefore be assigned truth values. When one tries to reduce these states to natural processes there arises an insurmountable problem: natural processes are not true or false, they simply happen. It would not make any sense to say that a natural process is true or false. But mental ideas or judgments are true or false, so how then can mental states (ideas or judgments) be natural processes beholden to an evolved brain? They clearly cannot. The possibility of assigning semantic value to ideas must mean that such ideas are about facts. Thus, for example, the idea that Herodotus was a historian refers to Herodotus and to the fact that he was an historian. If the fact is true, then the idea is true; otherwise, it is false. But where does this relation come from? In the brain, there are only electrochemical processes that have nothing to do with Herodotus.
Another interesting piece is found at: http://www.gau.edu.tr/PDF-Files/JSAS_004_07/JSAS_004_07_1_Boyer.pdf
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 10:26pm PT
|
largo--
the big mistake of your chop-logic begins with the word "material", which you immediately amend with "or physical".
modern physics gives us matter and energy, interchangeable in intimate ways, which neither you nor i have spent the requisite lifetimes to be conversant with. mind is quite obviously the product of this dance of matter and energy, the electricity in our material synapses between the neurons of our nerve systems and brains. modern electronics and computer science have confirmed this relationship in the astounding re-creation of natural nervous systems in the computer realm.
like it or not, we and our consciousnesses are the products of the natural world. i don't tug at it with the theologies of those who must create a supernatural. natural is wonderful and beautiful to me, i embrace it wholeheartedly, and i see our existences and consciousnesses as a real miracle, something wonderful, to be wondered at and, as is our privilege, approached for understanding.
pain? only a problem to christians. it's part of the survival mechanism, built in to all biology.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 10:39pm PT
|
ah, cragman--glad you've joined the fray. your comment is sincere, and i compliment you on that, but it ends on the usual, so christian, sour note of "you'll see--i shall have told you so".
i think the best christian comments on this thread come from climbera5, and i miss him 'cause he hasn't posted in awhile. none of this we're-gonna-show-you crap. he's a genuinely humble man and he makes a lot better case for his beliefs than any of the rest of you.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 10:53pm PT
|
It is sensible to understand mind consciousness as a product of evolutionary process. It’s functions have provided humanity success in that regard.
The strangeness and mystery of consciousness are a given, but consciousness is inherently tied to the very structure of its physical generator the brain.
As well, that conscious “thing” within, that “thing” we know as the self, that “thing” that is the structure of our experience and knowing receptor of our experience is perhaps the most mysterious and difficult to understand.
A light bulb gives off light as a function of the energy fed through its structure, when the energy is cut off or the bulb is damaged the light ceases to exist… where does it go?
The experience of self, of feelings is a function of energy fed through the remarkable structure of our very physical brains. Alter that machine, damage it and individual experience is altered. Shut it off and that experience ceases… where does it go?
Nothing is more mysterious than self-awareness, nothing. But how does that mystery lead us to God?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 10:57pm PT
|
Tony the Bird
You're getting desperate.
" ... those who must create a supernatural .."
Nobody is creating anything, it's already been there long before you ever showed up.
Suddenly you were born into this material world and now you're the authority on consciousness.
Consciousness existed long before you ever were born and it is superior to all material.
You are subordinate to it.
You are the creator of your own illusion.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
|
Go-B and Braun are two sides of the same coin.
Here, for your amusement:
Figure it out. The historical Jesus was a human, no more a God than Cleopatra (Daughter of Isis) or Julius Caesar (Son of Jupiter). Check yourself, you might suffer from this Irrational Disbelief Syndrome.
Belief: Jesus was a human being, not a God. Belief: Evolution is fact. Belief: Life is an evolved function. Belief: Consciousness is what the brain does. Belief: This life is not a rehearsal. One life to live, that's all.
Reframe it: Christians are nonbelievers. Many don't believe in evolution. Many don't believe in science or living up to science education. Many don't believe in Ashtar or Marduk, other ancient Mesopotamian Gods. Christians are nonbelievers. They suffer from Irrational Disbelief Syndrome.
To Christians who believe the historical Jesus was God Jesus, get help. It IS available.
It is not "vile" or "arrogant" or "hateful" as Christian political talking point lists call out, instead it's (a) education, decision-making, taking a stance and (b) expressing these.
Times are achanging. Brick by brick.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!