|
On July 05 2013 01:42 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with. Dualism is not always religious. You have religious dualism with the body / corpse mortal inferior to the soul which is the mix of the conscience, mind, reasoning, feelings all coming from God / heaven and also eternal (since monotheist religions). Popular dualism with the body, sensible things and the matter in general inferior to the soul which is the reasoning, mind etc... coming this time from the world of ideas and truth, the soul capable of finding this truth lost at birth (since antiquity and before). Cartesian dualism with the body / matter in general and the soul which is a non-spatial substance that thinks. There are more dualisms but these are the main ones (or at least in France / Europe).
"soul" and "mind" are both very religious things. we have a technical term for these two objects in the scientific world which is the "brain." religious or not, "mind" and "soul" are made up concepts from a time where one could not understand the brain.
|
On July 05 2013 00:01 pjc8513 wrote:I love looking at this topic from both sides. A few months ago I presented a paper at an undergraduate philosophy conference arguing against Cartesian Dualism (the mind body split) and arguing in favor instead for a naturalized (and materialistic) view of the mind. One of my favorite writers to argue this point is Owen Flanagan (he has several books on the subject, The Problem of the Soul is probably the most accessible and well written, I thought). Since writing that paper, however, I have not stopped thinking about the subject. I would make some revisions to my previous materialistic view, and that is that I now believe there is a lot in the actual experience of consciousness that transcends the ability of science to 'measure'. I recently wrote this blog article ( http://publicorganon.blogspot.com/2013/07/love-n-science.html) where I put down some thoughts on the neurologist attempt at reducing love to mere brain chemistry. The problem that I find is that love goes beyond only pleasure and attraction but leaks instead into hopes, desires, expectations, worries, etc...yes all of these individual things are the results body chemistry on some level, but scientific measurements does not come close to explaining away the actual experience in these moods and outlooks. Science and philosophy are intricately linked, but we should not simplify our intellectual pursuits / interests to merely what can be analyzed under the microscope or on the computer screen. The value of living an experience goes far beyond only identifying the names of chemicals and the regions of the brain that 'are responsible' for the thought, emotion or motivation.
I would agree that the experience of love can never be explained through mathematical formulas. That's actually a famous joke on the webcomic XKCD. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that the value of your experience should be diminished, and that the only thing you should care about is the mechanical understanding behind how love works (i.e. this series of chemical/electrical interactions).
I feel like you are kind of committing a fallacy in that regard, by suggesting that scientists want you to disregard your experiences; or that nothing matters except scientific determinism and mathematical formulae. All scientists are interested in is explaining what love is from a physics/biology perspective, they're not saying you should force yourself to consider your experience of love only in terms of mathematical formulae, or replace it with a mental conception of chemical/electrical interactions.
Because on one hand, love can't be anything except physical interactions as there is nothing else to cause it. But just like with consciousness, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, so we can appreciate the experience as something more. So you can understand what caused it, but you can also experience the result.
I would think they would celebrate your ability to experience love in all of its depth, and marvel at how it can come as a result of simple interactions in our brains.
|
On July 05 2013 01:03 biology]major wrote:
for something to be in the physical world it has to be observable, quantifiable.
This is completely false. You are confusing epistemology with ontology.
|
On July 05 2013 01:58 i zig zag around you wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 01:42 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with. Dualism is not always religious. You have religious dualism with the body / corpse mortal inferior to the soul which is the mix of the conscience, mind, reasoning, feelings all coming from God / heaven and also eternal (since monotheist religions). Popular dualism with the body, sensible things and the matter in general inferior to the soul which is the reasoning, mind etc... coming this time from the world of ideas and truth, the soul capable of finding this truth lost at birth (since antiquity and before). Cartesian dualism with the body / matter in general and the soul which is a non-spatial substance that thinks. There are more dualisms but these are the main ones (or at least in France / Europe). "soul" and "mind" are both very religious things. we have a technical term for these two objects in the scientific world which is the "brain." religious or not, "mind" and "soul" are made up concepts from a time where one could not understand the brain.
Instead of religious you should use spiritual, supernatural because a religion is a group of specific practices linked to a god or a group of gods / deities.
And soul at least in Europe doesn't come from religion this is perhaps something you didn't know.
It was created by philosophers / scientists (who were both during antiquity) to explain all our feelings, how we were thinking, with some theories about animal aspects (like udyr in lol) etc...
So at the end of the day, yes dualism involves soul most of the time but soul =/= religion.
Some people tried rly hard to explain the functioning of the soul unlike religions who were like "soul = perfect creation of god = non understandable).
|
On July 05 2013 03:00 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 01:58 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 05 2013 01:42 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with. Dualism is not always religious. You have religious dualism with the body / corpse mortal inferior to the soul which is the mix of the conscience, mind, reasoning, feelings all coming from God / heaven and also eternal (since monotheist religions). Popular dualism with the body, sensible things and the matter in general inferior to the soul which is the reasoning, mind etc... coming this time from the world of ideas and truth, the soul capable of finding this truth lost at birth (since antiquity and before). Cartesian dualism with the body / matter in general and the soul which is a non-spatial substance that thinks. There are more dualisms but these are the main ones (or at least in France / Europe). "soul" and "mind" are both very religious things. we have a technical term for these two objects in the scientific world which is the "brain." religious or not, "mind" and "soul" are made up concepts from a time where one could not understand the brain. Instead of religious you should use spiritual, supernatural because a religion is a group of specific practices linked to a god or a group of gods / deities. And soul at least in Europe doesn't come from religion this is perhaps something you didn't know. It was created by philosophers / scientists (who were both during antiquity) to explain all our feelings, how we were thinking, with some theories about animal aspects (like udyr in lol) etc...
The philosophers/scientists of antiquity were very much in the practice of appropriating religion in their studies. It was literally all around them.
|
On July 05 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 03:00 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:58 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 05 2013 01:42 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with. Dualism is not always religious. You have religious dualism with the body / corpse mortal inferior to the soul which is the mix of the conscience, mind, reasoning, feelings all coming from God / heaven and also eternal (since monotheist religions). Popular dualism with the body, sensible things and the matter in general inferior to the soul which is the reasoning, mind etc... coming this time from the world of ideas and truth, the soul capable of finding this truth lost at birth (since antiquity and before). Cartesian dualism with the body / matter in general and the soul which is a non-spatial substance that thinks. There are more dualisms but these are the main ones (or at least in France / Europe). "soul" and "mind" are both very religious things. we have a technical term for these two objects in the scientific world which is the "brain." religious or not, "mind" and "soul" are made up concepts from a time where one could not understand the brain. Instead of religious you should use spiritual, supernatural because a religion is a group of specific practices linked to a god or a group of gods / deities. And soul at least in Europe doesn't come from religion this is perhaps something you didn't know. It was created by philosophers / scientists (who were both during antiquity) to explain all our feelings, how we were thinking, with some theories about animal aspects (like udyr in lol) etc... The philosophers/scientists of antiquity were very much in the practice of appropriating religion in their studies. It was literally all around them.
Nope, they were all arguing about everything and had their own vision on god / gods.
Plus all philosophical movements like stoicism, epicurism didn't involve religion and didn't allow it.
Also a religion is a group of practices and faiths linked to a god or a group of gods / deities and alot of philosophers didn't do any of these practices.
edit : materialism and atomism were also created during antiquity
|
On July 05 2013 03:07 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On July 05 2013 03:00 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:58 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 05 2013 01:42 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with. Dualism is not always religious. You have religious dualism with the body / corpse mortal inferior to the soul which is the mix of the conscience, mind, reasoning, feelings all coming from God / heaven and also eternal (since monotheist religions). Popular dualism with the body, sensible things and the matter in general inferior to the soul which is the reasoning, mind etc... coming this time from the world of ideas and truth, the soul capable of finding this truth lost at birth (since antiquity and before). Cartesian dualism with the body / matter in general and the soul which is a non-spatial substance that thinks. There are more dualisms but these are the main ones (or at least in France / Europe). "soul" and "mind" are both very religious things. we have a technical term for these two objects in the scientific world which is the "brain." religious or not, "mind" and "soul" are made up concepts from a time where one could not understand the brain. Instead of religious you should use spiritual, supernatural because a religion is a group of specific practices linked to a god or a group of gods / deities. And soul at least in Europe doesn't come from religion this is perhaps something you didn't know. It was created by philosophers / scientists (who were both during antiquity) to explain all our feelings, how we were thinking, with some theories about animal aspects (like udyr in lol) etc... The philosophers/scientists of antiquity were very much in the practice of appropriating religion in their studies. It was literally all around them. Nope, they were all arguing about everything and had their own vision on god / gods. Plus all philosophical movements like stoicism, epicurism didn't involve religion and didn't allow it.
There is a difference between a doctrine's stated avoidance of religious concepts and the presence of religion in the periphery, but even that being said, you are overstating the lack of religiosity in something like Stoicism. Zeno of Citium, the more or less founder of the Stoic school, was a Heraclitian in part, and a large part of his physics regarded the Universe as God a la pantheism, an inherently religious undertaking. I can't stress enough that, in Antiquity, religiosity was everywhere. Even Epicurus himself made sure to suggest that he was not opposed to the idea of Gods but rather to the idea that they care at all for humanity.
|
On July 05 2013 03:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 03:07 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On July 05 2013 03:00 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:58 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 05 2013 01:42 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with. Dualism is not always religious. You have religious dualism with the body / corpse mortal inferior to the soul which is the mix of the conscience, mind, reasoning, feelings all coming from God / heaven and also eternal (since monotheist religions). Popular dualism with the body, sensible things and the matter in general inferior to the soul which is the reasoning, mind etc... coming this time from the world of ideas and truth, the soul capable of finding this truth lost at birth (since antiquity and before). Cartesian dualism with the body / matter in general and the soul which is a non-spatial substance that thinks. There are more dualisms but these are the main ones (or at least in France / Europe). "soul" and "mind" are both very religious things. we have a technical term for these two objects in the scientific world which is the "brain." religious or not, "mind" and "soul" are made up concepts from a time where one could not understand the brain. Instead of religious you should use spiritual, supernatural because a religion is a group of specific practices linked to a god or a group of gods / deities. And soul at least in Europe doesn't come from religion this is perhaps something you didn't know. It was created by philosophers / scientists (who were both during antiquity) to explain all our feelings, how we were thinking, with some theories about animal aspects (like udyr in lol) etc... The philosophers/scientists of antiquity were very much in the practice of appropriating religion in their studies. It was literally all around them. Nope, they were all arguing about everything and had their own vision on god / gods. Plus all philosophical movements like stoicism, epicurism didn't involve religion and didn't allow it. There is a difference between a doctrine's stated avoidance of religious concepts and the presence of religion in the periphery, but even that being said, you are overstating the lack of religiosity in something like Stoicism. Zeno of Citium, the more or less founder of the Stoic school, was a Heraclitian in part, and a large part of his physics regarded the Universe as God a la pantheism, an inherently religious undertaking. I can't stress enough that, in Antiquity, religiosity was everywhere. Even Epicurus himself made sure to suggest that he was not opposed to the idea of Gods but rather to the idea that they care at all for humanity.
He is not opposed to it but it doesn't mean he was religious or anything.
The concept of soul was not created by religion and most philosophers of antiquity were not religious get over with it
|
On July 05 2013 03:19 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 03:14 farvacola wrote:On July 05 2013 03:07 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On July 05 2013 03:00 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:58 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 05 2013 01:42 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with. Dualism is not always religious. You have religious dualism with the body / corpse mortal inferior to the soul which is the mix of the conscience, mind, reasoning, feelings all coming from God / heaven and also eternal (since monotheist religions). Popular dualism with the body, sensible things and the matter in general inferior to the soul which is the reasoning, mind etc... coming this time from the world of ideas and truth, the soul capable of finding this truth lost at birth (since antiquity and before). Cartesian dualism with the body / matter in general and the soul which is a non-spatial substance that thinks. There are more dualisms but these are the main ones (or at least in France / Europe). "soul" and "mind" are both very religious things. we have a technical term for these two objects in the scientific world which is the "brain." religious or not, "mind" and "soul" are made up concepts from a time where one could not understand the brain. Instead of religious you should use spiritual, supernatural because a religion is a group of specific practices linked to a god or a group of gods / deities. And soul at least in Europe doesn't come from religion this is perhaps something you didn't know. It was created by philosophers / scientists (who were both during antiquity) to explain all our feelings, how we were thinking, with some theories about animal aspects (like udyr in lol) etc... The philosophers/scientists of antiquity were very much in the practice of appropriating religion in their studies. It was literally all around them. Nope, they were all arguing about everything and had their own vision on god / gods. Plus all philosophical movements like stoicism, epicurism didn't involve religion and didn't allow it. There is a difference between a doctrine's stated avoidance of religious concepts and the presence of religion in the periphery, but even that being said, you are overstating the lack of religiosity in something like Stoicism. Zeno of Citium, the more or less founder of the Stoic school, was a Heraclitian in part, and a large part of his physics regarded the Universe as God a la pantheism, an inherently religious undertaking. I can't stress enough that, in Antiquity, religiosity was everywhere. Even Epicurus himself made sure to suggest that he was not opposed to the idea of Gods but rather to the idea that they care at all for humanity. He is not opposed to it but it doesn't mean he was religious or anything. The concept of soul was not created by religion and most philosophers of antiquity were not religious get over with it
Of course the concept of the soul was not "created by religion". But to suggest that there existed a formal separation between philosophy and religion in Antiquity is to ignore much of what history tells us.
|
On July 05 2013 03:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 03:19 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 03:14 farvacola wrote:On July 05 2013 03:07 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On July 05 2013 03:00 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:58 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 05 2013 01:42 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with. Dualism is not always religious. You have religious dualism with the body / corpse mortal inferior to the soul which is the mix of the conscience, mind, reasoning, feelings all coming from God / heaven and also eternal (since monotheist religions). Popular dualism with the body, sensible things and the matter in general inferior to the soul which is the reasoning, mind etc... coming this time from the world of ideas and truth, the soul capable of finding this truth lost at birth (since antiquity and before). Cartesian dualism with the body / matter in general and the soul which is a non-spatial substance that thinks. There are more dualisms but these are the main ones (or at least in France / Europe). "soul" and "mind" are both very religious things. we have a technical term for these two objects in the scientific world which is the "brain." religious or not, "mind" and "soul" are made up concepts from a time where one could not understand the brain. Instead of religious you should use spiritual, supernatural because a religion is a group of specific practices linked to a god or a group of gods / deities. And soul at least in Europe doesn't come from religion this is perhaps something you didn't know. It was created by philosophers / scientists (who were both during antiquity) to explain all our feelings, how we were thinking, with some theories about animal aspects (like udyr in lol) etc... The philosophers/scientists of antiquity were very much in the practice of appropriating religion in their studies. It was literally all around them. Nope, they were all arguing about everything and had their own vision on god / gods. Plus all philosophical movements like stoicism, epicurism didn't involve religion and didn't allow it. There is a difference between a doctrine's stated avoidance of religious concepts and the presence of religion in the periphery, but even that being said, you are overstating the lack of religiosity in something like Stoicism. Zeno of Citium, the more or less founder of the Stoic school, was a Heraclitian in part, and a large part of his physics regarded the Universe as God a la pantheism, an inherently religious undertaking. I can't stress enough that, in Antiquity, religiosity was everywhere. Even Epicurus himself made sure to suggest that he was not opposed to the idea of Gods but rather to the idea that they care at all for humanity. He is not opposed to it but it doesn't mean he was religious or anything. The concept of soul was not created by religion and most philosophers of antiquity were not religious get over with it Of course the concept of the soul was not "created by religion". But to suggest that there existed a formal separation between philosophy and religion in Antiquity is to ignore much of what history tells us.
Sorry if I wasn't clear and suggested that. We're arguing for the sake of it it seems ;( .
|
On July 05 2013 03:00 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 01:58 i zig zag around you wrote:On July 05 2013 01:42 Acertos wrote:On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with. Dualism is not always religious. You have religious dualism with the body / corpse mortal inferior to the soul which is the mix of the conscience, mind, reasoning, feelings all coming from God / heaven and also eternal (since monotheist religions). Popular dualism with the body, sensible things and the matter in general inferior to the soul which is the reasoning, mind etc... coming this time from the world of ideas and truth, the soul capable of finding this truth lost at birth (since antiquity and before). Cartesian dualism with the body / matter in general and the soul which is a non-spatial substance that thinks. There are more dualisms but these are the main ones (or at least in France / Europe). "soul" and "mind" are both very religious things. we have a technical term for these two objects in the scientific world which is the "brain." religious or not, "mind" and "soul" are made up concepts from a time where one could not understand the brain. Instead of religious you should use spiritual, supernatural because a religion is a group of specific practices linked to a god or a group of gods / deities. And soul at least in Europe doesn't come from religion this is perhaps something you didn't know. It was created by philosophers / scientists (who were both during antiquity) to explain all our feelings, how we were thinking, with some theories about animal aspects (like udyr in lol) etc... So at the end of the day, yes dualism involves soul most of the time but soul =/= religion. Some people tried rly hard to explain the functioning of the soul unlike religions who were like "soul = perfect creation of god = non understandable).
theorycrafting of the 12th century is not science. i refuse to believe that "scientists", and certainly not "philosophers", could even begin to elaborate on the final product of our senses in the 12th century. furthermore, "dualism" is purely philosophy, not science.
|
On July 05 2013 01:07 Acertos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 00:46 MiraMax wrote:On July 04 2013 21:50 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 20:38 NukeD wrote:On July 04 2013 19:56 lebowskiguy wrote:
There is no conceivable way for free will to exist; whether the universe is fully partly or not at all deterministic or probabilistic is completely irrelevant. Why is that? If the universe is deterministic then our actions are unavoidable; if it is probabilistic then what we do is based in randomness. If the universe is a combination of the two then again there's no conceivable way in which we could be held responsible for our actions, there is no free will. Arguments like this one make exactly as much sense to me as "the slaves were never really freed since they are still fully subject to the law of gravity". Sure libertarian free will is bogus, but compatibilist free will is all you "need" for moral responsibility. Damn you, Sam Harris! His argument is perfectly right. He's just stating things and showing how they are dumb. But imo even if there are always circumstances we humans can decide. Sartre even if I think his theories are a bit simple said "Man is condemned to be free, he always has a choice and make choices. Putting the responsibility on circumstances is being dishonest". I personally think it's true. OK in some cases with diseases of the brain etc... the level of responsibility of someone can be tricky to find but I still think everyone should think like that and stop being passive and fatalist regarding their actions an their life : "Oh, it can't be helped." "I was not thinking at that time." etc... Not thinking and ignoring things is also a choice, people always forget that so okay there are always determined things but we humans have the chance to think and decide.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, since you seem to agree with lebowskyguy only to pull a 180 and claim that responsibility and "real" choices are possible. I don't see how fatalism should follow even in a fully deterministic universe nor how this should compromise my or anyone's moral responsibility. I agree that it might be a powerful cognitive illusion, but it's flawed reasoning.
|
this thread must not die.
- assume for the sake of future arguments that the universe (for now) is both probabilistic and deterministic, that once a probability is rolled its outcome becomes deterministic.
- the issue: dice roll -> decision making -> action taking
since the decision making is determined by the dice roll it's not even worth discussing so the issue becomes dice roll -> action taking.
statements likeBrain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide” don't say much about anything becauseThe role of consciousness in decision making is also being clarified: some thinkers have suggested that it mostly serves to cancel certain actions initiated by the unconscious .
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
since consciousness is a relatively new evolutionary development, it is to be expected that prior to it, a dice roll would be equivalent with an action taken and also that residual action taking without its involvement would to be expected today.
but think of the times when we will be pure consciousness and there will be no action determined by a dice roll.
|
On July 05 2013 17:36 xM(Z wrote:
if consciousness cancels the decision made by the dice roll then it's correct to say we have free will?.
also, if dice roll = action taking then it's correct to assume that consciousness doesn't exist? (sort of a human life vs other life form debate)
If you believe that consciousness is physical (like the vast majority of people in this topic), it doesn't have any impact on free will. Let's say there's a "dice roll" decision made, and your consciousness cancels it. Why did you cancel it? Depends on the action, but any person has a reason for any decision, and that reason comes from their brain. Maybe they have tried the other thing before and it didn't work, maybe they are scared of the possible outcomes etc... anything should still be perfectly deterministic.
|
whilst physics has degenerated into particle physics and elementary physics which probably 1% of people on here actually have studied its pretty safe to say anyone claiming to know shit about what physical can and cant do or questioning any wierd causal shit (for or against) has no idea what they are talking about.
There is a lot of stuff in physics that can only be talked about in a systemic sense of assuming some form of balance over time rather than a more newtonian idea of a imparts x to b.
So is the mind purley physical?
The physical is probably not purley physical in the sense that most people mean it. the problem is that the whole point of physics is to activley ignore anything that cannot be physically measured on the basis of until we can measure it it cannot be having a noticable effect and so therefor is negligable. Its not that it isnt there (you cannot make any positive claim for or against) its that it doesnt matter.
Lots of people assuming common sense stuff like physical is something they understand when it is probably one of the elusive ideas about.
Also theory crafting in 12th centuary had some science going on ... there was just a completley different set of acceptance criteria. Science is simply a method of interrogating data against acceptance criteria ... what you mean is that C12 science is not physical science.
*If* we can call economics science then there has to be more than the physical definition of science because last time i checked you cant carry out scientific method on economics - because it is impossible to abstract out an area of space within it that is independant of the rest. Unlike classical physics that makes that as one of its fundemental assumptions.
The problem is that all sciences bar physical dont yield any positive consistent results and until they do have very veyr little value - unless you consider them things of artistic beauty.
Also people who think concepts are real are a bit insane. Why does anything have to be freewill or determinism or causal. Both are ideas abstracted from the world ... why the hell do you think the world has to therefor be one or the other idea? You cannot imagine a universe without gravity (if you think you can you are just not very clever and have jumped to a conclusion) gravity - no gravity is a real dualism (in the sense that they really are different as reality would be) rather than a constructed logical one... one of them you cannot think because it would completely alter the laws of physics in ways you have no possible way to experience. Fredom vs determinism is banal and a complete misunderstanding of how your ideas relate to the world.
|
"I don't see how fatalism should follow even in a fully deterministic universe nor how this should compromise my or anyone's moral responsibility"
Well if the universe is 100% deterministic there is no moral responsibility since there are no choises. Everything is predetermined.
Or do i see this to simplistic?, I read something about the universe beeing deterministic can still allow for free will but to me it made no sense. Maybe someone could explain.
"since consciousness is a relatively new evolutionary development, it is to be expected that prior to it, a dice roll would be equivalent with an action taken "
Hmm this is kinda interesting,consciousness seems to be a relativly new development and it seems to still devellop.
Apearently (i have not tried this myself but i read about this theory) if you study old texts from the greek and roman you can see that they have a less develloped consciousness, based on how they are writing. It is more descriptive of events and it contains less personal experiences with the notion of a self.(again, i am no expert on this so i might be wrong)
|
On July 05 2013 20:21 Rassy wrote:
"I don't see how fatalism should follow even in a fully deterministic universe nor how this should compromise my or anyone's moral responsibility"
Well if the universe is 100% deterministic there is no moral responsibility since there are no choises. Everything is predetermined.
Or do i see this to simplistic?, I read something about the universe beeing deterministic can still allow for free will but to me it made no sense. Maybe someone could explain.
Even without "free will", moral still matters. Indeed, no one is actually making any choices, since any choice they make is based on their history. However, people often make choices based on moral. We decide not to do things because of the consequences, like going to jail. It's not free will, we are conditioned for this, but it will only work as long as we consider ourselves responsible for it.
It's hard to explain, but the point is that even if there is no FREE will, you're still responsible for your decisions. The reason I decide not to kill someone could be because I was taught it's wrong to kill people. This is deterministic, if I was never told this, maybe I WOULD kill someone. But the fact that I learned it was wrong decided my future choice, which lead to a better future, so it's important that I learned it and the fact that I'm held responsible affects my future choices.
|
On July 05 2013 20:21 Rassy wrote:
"I don't see how fatalism should follow even in a fully deterministic universe nor how this should compromise my or anyone's moral responsibility"
Well if the universe is 100% deterministic there is no moral responsibility since there are no choises. Everything is predetermined.
Or do i see this to simplistic?, I read something about the universe beeing deterministic can still allow for free will but to me it made no sense. Maybe someone could explain.
Why would you say that there would be "no choices" if the universe were deterministic, rather than: "It would mean that were you to run the universe again right from the beginning, then everybody would make exactly the same choices again." ? Do you see the difference in this phrasing.
Either the choices are yours to make (in constant interaction with your environment, of course) or not (maybe you are a strong eliminitivist about intentionality). In any case, determinism or indeterminism should change nothing about your judgement.
Let me ask you this: Suppose that 'real' free will or 'real' decision making would require some magic component and that we would just so happen to live in a world in which we had this magic component. If I were then to tell you that the problem remains, that were we to run this world again and again, then everybody would always take the same choices again since everybody would still act according to their nature. Would this take anything away from the freedom of decision making?
|
Lag is a big issue in the gaming community.. particularly those playing online to say Korea from North America.. An interesting concept is to think about how our body is a system of senses. Our 5 senses all operate mechanically, while noting that Time is a separate system. When you use any sense or make any decision to use a muscle or sense it takes time. It's interesting to know that we all live in the past, even if it is only nanoseconds.
When you want to touch an object, it takes time to make the decision to do it, to decide which muscles to use, to send the information to the muscle, for the muscle to work, for you to sense it working, for the touch to happen, to then decipher the sense of touch and relay back to you, then for the sense to register mentally, and finally for you to reflect on it, only then have you touched an object.
Granted these things take an extremely minute amount of time. Much the same way the input from your mechanical keyboard takes a small amount of time to produce a key. It's interesting when comprehending this idea to understand that our consciousness is subject to input lag and we are behind.
Whenever we are conscious at the present time it's never exactly present, only relatively for us. We still don't know exactly what consciousness is aside from electrical activity. Until we do, I don't think you can prove or disprove determinism. Free will could very well still be possible. Quantum physics gets weirder and weirder when measuring atoms and particles. My personal guess is that somewhere in the delay, exists free will, where you choose to observe different senses or thoughts through some sort of quantum superposition/observational mechanism..
|
^ thats a long way of saying absolutelly nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
