The Illusion of Self

[Gordon]

why do you keep using the word 'power' , what do you mean by it?

Vlad's never been preoccupied by 'power' before so it sounds like he has found a new toy to play with - perhaps he got a battery charger for Xmas and has been inspired by that,

[Walter]

Vlad's never been preoccupied by 'power' before so it sounds like he has found a new toy to play with - perhaps he got a battery charger for Xmas and has been inspired by that,

this constant clutching at straws, like a man drowning in his own desperation, to find some truth in an implausible belief system which has infiltrated his mind, only shows that he's loosing the battle ,even with himself.

[torridon]

Coming into being from nothing is a change. The being of that something is therefore a derived power and therefore it must be in a heirachical chain ending in an actual power. Also, given that the universe is not a quantum vacuum is it not possible that these particles have come from somewhere else in the system? Earlier for instance you reiterated the notion that energy is not created or destroyed...that energy is eternal. Why are you contradicting yourself now?

I have a feeling though that the nothing you describe is actually a physicists nothing which as we know is a something. And I'm sure you reflected Krauss earlier in the argument by saying that questions concerning a nothing might be invalid.

Also you used the term virtual self to avoid admitting to a real non illusory self. Are virtual particles therefore real or illusory?

In so far as virtual particles and suchlike, we are close to the edge of our current understanding of reality and many things at the coalface so to speak are work in progress. We don't yet know how to reconcile gravity with quantum theory, we don't know how black holes can really exist yet clearly they do, we don't know what caused the big bang, we don't know why there is so little antimatter, we don't know what caused inflation, we don't know what dark matter is or dark energy but I think it a fair bet that to write all our don't knows down to some unknowable external source is a policy that is going to fail us in the long term. It kills off our curiosity.  Clearly the big bang happened and that has set in motion a consequent chain of events played out according to the principles of natural law.  As a result, constant change is now inevitable and incessant given that all matter is interconnected and in constant motion and interaction.  Does a chain of change need an unchanging instigation ? Maybe that might be right, maybe not, perhaps that implies some external reference frame is required to instigate the first change, but that would then beg the question of the provenance and nature of the external reference frame.  If we have learned one thing from the last hundred years of science, it is that our intuitions are not always right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

this constant clutching at straws, like a man drowning in his own desperation, to find some truth in an implausible belief system which has infiltrated his mind, only shows that he's loosing the battle ,even with himself.

I'm afraid Walter, you should be worried, not only because of the soundness of the argument but that Gordon's previous comment is nearer to the mark than yours and his looks completely inane.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In so far as virtual particles and suchlike, we are close to the edge of our current understanding of reality and many things at the coalface so to speak are work in progress. We don't yet know how to reconcile gravity with quantum theory, we don't know how black holes can really exist yet clearly they do, we don't know what caused the big bang, we don't know why there is so little antimatter, we don't know what caused inflation, we don't know what dark matter is or dark energy but I think it a fair bet that to write all our don't knows down to some unknowable external source is a policy that is going to fail us in the long term. It kills off our curiosity.  Clearly the big bang happened and that has set in motion a consequent chain of events played out according to the principles of natural law.  As a result, constant change is now inevitable and incessant given that all matter is interconnected and in constant motion and interaction.  Does a chain of change need an unchanging instigation ? Maybe that might be right, maybe not, perhaps that implies some external reference frame is required to instigate the first change, but that would then beg the question of the provenance and nature of the external reference frame.  If we have learned one thing from the last hundred years of science, it is that our intuitions are not always right.

I have no beef over the science but the science is not a philosophy and will always end with matter energy nor is science actually a cosmological argument although both science and a hierarchical rather than a consequential chain are bottom up. The hierarchical chain starting with observed derived power

[Walter]

I have no beef over the science but the science is not a philosophy and will always end with matter energy nor is science actually a cosmological argument although both science and a hierarchical rather than a consequential chain are bottom up. The hierarchical chain starting with observed derived power

none of your posts actually offer any explanations to anything .You just continue to say
'well, what about this , and this , or this, oh , and I've just thought of this.
Just give it a rest , or PROVE IT.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

none of your posts actually offer any explanations to anything .You just continue to say
'well, what about this , and this , or this, oh , and I've just thought of this.
Just give it a rest , or PROVE IT.

Walter...you cannot have derived power without actual power.

Your approach is just antitheist Alf Garnettism. A shouty anti-intellectual totalitarianism.
Because antitheism is a type of populism you are i'm afraid a mere foot soldier, fodder for the likes of.

[Walter]

Ability to change. The scientific definition of power would, for instance come under this since power is energy transferred in a given time.

I fully understand the scientific definition , but what do YOU ,mean by it?

[wigginhall]

I have no beef over the science but the science is not a philosophy and will always end with matter energy nor is science actually a cosmological argument although both science and a hierarchical rather than a consequential chain are bottom up. The hierarchical chain starting with observed derived power

These arguments sound very like the First Cause, or Unmoved Mover arguments, coming down from Aristotle and Aquinas.   They rely on the exemptions granted to the First Cause, it is without change or movement, it is not in time, it is not part of cause and effect, and so on.   

You seem to find this convincing, but I don't find analogies of goods trains rattling along, and needing an engine at the front,  very persuasive.   It also seems a peculiar mish-mash of physics and metaphysics.

[Walter]

Walter...you cannot have derived power without actual power.

Your approach is just antitheist Alf Garnettism. A shouty anti-intellectual totalitarianism.
Because antitheism is a type of populism you are i'm afraid a mere foot soldier, fodder for the likes of.

perhaps you should think of it like this instead.
You do not warrant the courtesy of my full intellect, the tone of my posts reflect this , as you clearly have noticed .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

These arguments sound very like the First Cause, or Unmoved Mover arguments, coming down from Aristotle and Aquinas.   They rely on the exemptions granted to the First Cause, it is without change or movement, it is not in time, it is not part of cause and effect, and so on.   

You seem to find this convincing, but I don't find analogies of goods trains rattling along, and needing an engine at the front,  very persuasive.   It also seems a peculiar mish-mash of physics and metaphysics.

Wigginhall your post is by turns 1) vague 2) illogical since derived power is different from actual power so the only exemption is difference and then 3) Back to vague.

What I find puzzling is you can accept derived power without actual power, but derived power from actual power is a no no. Where or from whom did you pick that up from? Can it be anything other than actual power presents you personally with difficulties? Perhaps you could explain?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

perhaps you should think of it like this instead.
You do not warrant the courtesy of my full intellect, the tone of my posts reflect this , as you clearly have noticed .

Since all you seem to have done is just express assent to what others have said you are acting an necessary middle-man/chorus in a greek tragedy.

No one on this forum it seems warrants your full intellect.

May I praise your modesty for keeping it under wraps.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

These arguments sound very like the First Cause, or Unmoved Mover arguments, coming down from Aristotle and Aquinas.   They rely on the exemptions granted to the First Cause, it is without change or movement, it is not in time, it is not part of cause and effect, and so on.   

You seem to find this convincing, but I don't find analogies of goods trains rattling along, and needing an engine at the front,  very persuasive.   It also seems a peculiar mish-mash of physics and metaphysics.

Physics and this metaphysics start from observations. They are both bottom up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

   It also seems a peculiar mish-mash of physics and metaphysics.

That seems not to be an issue for you in your support for scientism, naturalism and materialism. Special pleading?

[Walter]

Wigginhall your post is by turns 1) vague 2) illogical since derived power is different from actual power so the only exemption is difference and then 3) Back to vague.

What I find puzzling is you can accept derived power without actual power, but derived power from actual power is a no no. Where or from whom did you pick that up from? Can it be anything other than actual power presents you personally with difficulties? Perhaps you could explain?

I hope you don't intend to drive anywhere today!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#369

SOTS,

Here (Reply 358):

"One can reach different conclusions about the nature of the external influence, but it doesn't alter the truth that there is an external influence responsible.  I would rather go down the route of investigating what that external influence is, rather than going for the alternative, which violates laws of Physics."

Which was preceded by

2. The last part therefore it must derive from some powerful being working in isolation. is not correct. My contention is that the cause of the power is external. It is consistent with Physics and is supported by the kind of observations and experiments that anyone on the planet can observe or even demonstrate themselves! I can also conclude that the cause for the power is external, because the system is not doing any work in order to generate it, nor does it come at the expense of another part of the system.

So where is your claim

A better alternative is to understand what the laws of physics are actually telling us rather than rely on ignorance of them to open up a faux gap in which a god can hide.

happening, with respect to this?

[wigginhall]

That seems not to be an issue for you in your support for scientism, naturalism and materialism. Special pleading?

It's amazing how you always have to misrepresent other people's views.   There is little point in discussing anything when you do this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's amazing how you always have to misrepresent other people's views.   There is little point in discussing anything when you do this.

I'm sorry if you have already criticised the positions of scientism, naturalism and materialism as being mish mashes of science and philosophy recently but I confess to not recalling any of your recent posts having done this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Regarding Professor Feser...have you read or seen any videos of the Master? An introductory ad hominem attack by Bluehillside is a recommendation and endorsement I would have thought.

Aw bless - and still trollboy shows that he has no idea what the term ad hominem means despite having it explained several times.

Fortunately I have my English/Vladdish translator to hand so we can try again:

Ad hominem

English:

Directed against a person rather than the argument position they are maintaining.

Vladdish:

Criticising the argument or action of someone with whom I happen to agree.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry if you have already criticised the positions of scientism, naturalism and materialism as being mish mashes of science and philosophy recently but I confess to not recalling any of your recent posts having done this.

Presumably because he has no interest in criticising your personal re-definitions of these terms. If you’d just stop lying about that and instead confine yourself to their actual meanings and for that matter to what people here actually say you my find some of us more willing to respond.

Seriously – just for once abandon the misrepresentations and you may be surprised at the responses you get. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Aw bless - and still trollboy shows that he has no idea what the term ad hominem means despite having it explained several times.

Fortunately I have my English/Vladdish translator to hand so we can try again:

Ad hominem

English:

Directed against a person rather than the argument position they are maintaining.

Vladdish:

Criticising the argument or action of someone with whom I happen to agree.

Oh yes reply hash 343 doesn't at all start as an ad hominem............... much.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Incidentally Vlad, any comment on your remarkable volte-face about what you think this god of yours to be? You seem to have jumped from “the creator of everything” to “the deity that happened to chance on some energy and then tinkered with it” with remarkable facility – presumably because you’ve been sold a pup by Feser.

Whatever the reason though, why the junking of your previous conjectures in favour of one that knocks your notion of a god of the omnis out of the park?

How very reductionist of you!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seriously .......................................................................... you may be surprised at the responses you get.

They never cease to do that already.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh yes reply hash 343 doesn't at all start as an ad hominem............... much.

You seem to be very relaxed about repeatedly telling us that you have no idea what ad hominem means. Claiming, say, that he smells of weasels would be an ad hom; questioning how he has a PhD given the poverty of his thinking on the other hand is not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They never cease to do that already.

Evasion noted.

Who'd have thought it eh?