Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We don't know if that is true as we cannot be certain whether true randomness exists or not.  Nonetheless it is evident that your 'free' choice to follow the christian path was for reasons, and likewise the Pakistani 'freely' choosing to follow the path of Islam was also born of reasons.  We cannot be 'free' of the reasons that underpin our choices, to claim so is to claim that our choices are indeed random.

You seem to be banking on someone having the same reasons for being Islamic as for being a Christian. What warrant do you have for these?

[torridon]

You seem to be banking on someone having the same reasons for being Islamic as for being a Christian. What warrant do you have for these?

That's not what I wrote.  Go back and read again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not what I wrote.  Go back and read again.

Sorry, it’s the impression I got. Even if the elements of the choice are from previous experience, the choice itself could be an emergent.

Whether temporarily phenomenon can influence a choice for something like the divine I don’t know? What would prepare you for the divine?

We don’t act as if totally determined.

Perhaps if you think you are determined, You should try some kind of meditation to eliminate the noise from your programming.

[Gordon]

Sorry, it’s the impression I got. Even if the elements of the choice are from previous experience, the choice itself could be an emergent.

All choices that people make 'emerge' from the biology in their skulls - they just aren't aware of the pre-conscious elements of the process.

Whether temporarily phenomenon can influence a choice for something like the divine I don’t know? What would prepare you for the divine?

That is for you guys to explain: but is theism a 'choice', in the same way as choosing one pack of cheese over another is a choice?

We don’t act as if totally determined.

Perhaps it just feels that way: we feel and act as if we have a degree of agency/freewill, but its not wholly 'free' of prevailing circumstances, subconscious personal traits/biases and our personal histories and experiences.

Perhaps if you think you are determined, You should try some kind of meditation to eliminate the noise from your programming.

Can't see that recognising the limits to our sense of agency constitutes 'noise'.

[Stranger]

Randomness has nothing to do with it.

We don't actually know if randomness, or effective randomness, has anything to do with it. And yet again:

'No randomness' means 'fully deterministic'.

(Note the real meaning of 'deterministic', not your foolish 'determined by'.)

Please answer -
In your version of determinism, is our "will" determined by past events beyond our conscious control?
If so, we have no control over our destiny.  It will be pre determined from birth.

FALLACY: False dichotomy.
FALLACY: Appeal to consequences.

Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: It is you that is the consequence of the past and it is you who is in control. Human minds are evolved control devices. Your basic nature has been shaped by everything that has happened to you. The resulting person is in control.

And the addition of 'conscious' to 'control' is an idiotic and foolish distraction that only goes to show that you don't understand the logic. The role consciousness plays in control is totally irrelevant.

[Nearly Sane]

For Nearly Sane and Stranger with Love.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence

Can you indicate the bits you think the idea that existence isn't time based?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you indicate the bits you think the idea that existence isn't time based?

Existence being time based is out of the physicalist playbook Sane. There isn't 100% concensus of time among physicists and philosophers. Given there are screeds and screeds on existence puts a question mark on you being able to put it to bed in a sentence.

If time slows down to zero at the speed of light then photons are unaffected by it and yet, as Stranger tells us, they haven't always been around. How does one get their heads around that?

For thinking that existence is not time dependent see the reference made when the article discusses necessary existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All choices that people make 'emerge' from the biology in their skulls - they just aren't aware of the pre-conscious elements of the process.

That just reads like a crappy version of stimulus and response where the stimulus bit has been left out. Tells us virtually nothing.

[Gordon]

That just reads like a crappy version of stimulus and response where the stimulus bit has been left out. Tells us virtually nothing.

I do believe I mentioned packs of cheese.

[Stranger]

Existence being time based is out of the physicalist playbook Sane. There isn't 100% concensus of time among physicists...

That's self-contradictory.

If time slows down to zero at the speed of light then photons are unaffected by it and yet, as Stranger tells us, they haven't always been around. How does one get their heads around that?

Did I? I don't recall posting on this, at least at all recently. It's true that the space-time interval (the space-time 'distance') along the path of light travelling in a vacuum is zero, but I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the question at hand. Null or light-like intervals can only exist within space-time.

Also, this 'existence is time based' is Nearly Sane's argument. I have not directly commented on it because I think it somewhat debatable. What you definitely can't have without time is anything remotely like a mind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's self-contradictory.

Did I? I don't recall posting on this, at least at all recently. It's true that the space-time interval (the space-time 'distance') along the path of light travelling in a vacuum is zero, but I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the question at hand. Null or light-like intervals can only exist within space-time.

Also, this 'existence is time based' is Nearly Sane's argument. I have not directly commented on it because I think it somewhat debatable. What you definitely can't have without time is anything remotely like a mind.

I think you will have to justify that last statement. How do you know you can’t have something mind like which is not physical given that physicalism is a philosophy?

[Stranger]

I think you will have to justify that last statement. How do you know you can’t have something mind like which is not physical given that physicalism is a philosophy?

You can't have anything like a mind without time because every function of a mind needs time. Thinking needs time, choosing needs time, acting needs time...

[Alan Burns]

And the addition of 'conscious' to 'control' is an idiotic and foolish distraction that only goes to show that you don't understand the logic. The role consciousness plays in control is totally irrelevant.

Which confirms my earlier observation that your flawed logic implies that we are the equivalent of pre programmed robots with no need for conscious control.

[jeremyp]

Which confirms my earlier observation that your flawed logic implies that we are the equivalent of pre programmed robots with no need for conscious control.

No. Robots whose programming can be changed but in reaction to things that have happened. You don't understand what determinism means.

[Stranger]

Which confirms my earlier observation that your flawed logic...

Just calling something flawed when you are incapable of pointing out any flaws, is a bit on the silly side.   

...implies that we are the equivalent of pre programmed robots with no need for conscious control.

For fuck's sake, what is the matter with you? The contents of your consciousness are just as determined by your nature and experience as anything unconscious, so what role consciousness plays in 'control' couldn't be less relevant.

Are you really totally incapable of seeing this? Has faith really crippled your reasoning ability that much?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can't have anything like a mind without time because every function of a mind needs time. Thinking needs time, choosing needs time, acting needs time...

Citation please.
I'm wondering if that is true since something like mathematical realism is not dependent on time or entropic process.

[Stranger]

Citation please.

For the bleedin' obvious? Try thinking, choosing, or acting in no time.

I'm wondering if that is true since something like mathematical realism is not dependent on time or entropic process.

Mathematical truths are not minds. Jeez.

[torridon]

Which confirms my earlier observation that your flawed logic implies that we are the equivalent of pre programmed robots with no need for conscious control.

 .. which is just an appeal to consequences.  What you need to do is come up with a rebuttal based on sound logic.

[torridon]

I think you will have to justify that last statement. How do you know you can’t have something mind like which is not physical given that physicalism is a philosophy?

Minds evolved to enhance the survival rates of the bodies from which they emerge.  Having a mind without a body would be pointless.

[Alan Burns]

No. Robots whose programming can be changed but in reaction to things that have happened. You don't understand what determinism means.

I am fully aware that learnt experiences can be incorporated within a robot's pre programmed algorithms to improve on their objective function - for example in computerised chess playing.  The enhanced control is achieved without any need for conscious self awareness because the ultimate controller is the one who wrote the program.  But the presumption that the programmer could actually write his program without the need for conscious control of his own thought processes truly beggars belief.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

Having a mind without a body would be pointless.


I need more power scotty, ah cannae gie ye more power captain the engines willnae take it captain.

Instead of calling this the Religion and Ethics forum maybe we should just call it the Ethics forum, dangerous territory Gonnagle, one of those pesky theists is bound to mention God, we are after all Homo Religious creatures.

"Homo religiosus," meaning "religious man" or "human being with a religious nature," is a concept that suggests humans possess an inherent, natural inclination towards religious or spiritual experiences and beliefs.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Core Idea:
The concept of homo religiosus, popularized by Mircea Eliade, asserts that religion is not just a cultural phenomenon but a fundamental aspect of human existence, a natural drive towards the sacred and the transcendent.
Inherent Religiosity:
It posits that humans have an innate capacity for religious experience, a search for meaning, purpose, and connection to something beyond the everyday world.
Not About Specific Religions:
Homo religiosus doesn't imply that all humans are necessarily religious in a specific institutional or denominational way, but rather that they are inclined to seek meaning and purpose, which can manifest in various ways, including religious practices, spiritual beliefs, or even a sense of awe and wonder.
Examples:
Scholars like Mircea Eliade, Rudolf Otto, and others have explored this idea, arguing that humans are naturally drawn to the sacred, whether through rituals, myths, or other forms of religious expression.
Contrasting with Homo Sapiens:
While "homo sapiens" refers to humans as a species, "homo religiosus" highlights the religious or spiritual dimension of human nature, suggesting that humans are not only rational and thinking beings but also beings with a deep-seated need for meaning and connection.
 

Gonnagle.

[torridon]

Dear Torridon,

Having a mind without a body would be pointless.


I need more power scotty, ah cannae gie ye more power captain the engines willnae take it captain.

Instead of calling this the Religion and Ethics forum maybe we should just call it the Ethics forum, dangerous territory Gonnagle, one of those pesky theists is bound to mention God, we are after all Homo Religious creatures.

"Homo religiosus," meaning "religious man" or "human being with a religious nature," is a concept that suggests humans possess an inherent, natural inclination towards religious or spiritual experiences and beliefs.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Core Idea:
The concept of homo religiosus, popularized by Mircea Eliade, asserts that religion is not just a cultural phenomenon but a fundamental aspect of human existence, a natural drive towards the sacred and the transcendent.
Inherent Religiosity:
It posits that humans have an innate capacity for religious experience, a search for meaning, purpose, and connection to something beyond the everyday world.
Not About Specific Religions:
Homo religiosus doesn't imply that all humans are necessarily religious in a specific institutional or denominational way, but rather that they are inclined to seek meaning and purpose, which can manifest in various ways, including religious practices, spiritual beliefs, or even a sense of awe and wonder.
Examples:
Scholars like Mircea Eliade, Rudolf Otto, and others have explored this idea, arguing that humans are naturally drawn to the sacred, whether through rituals, myths, or other forms of religious expression.
Contrasting with Homo Sapiens:
While "homo sapiens" refers to humans as a species, "homo religiosus" highlights the religious or spiritual dimension of human nature, suggesting that humans are not only rational and thinking beings but also beings with a deep-seated need for meaning and connection.
 

Gonnagle.

Very nice, although I fail to see how this provides justification for the concept of a bodiless mind.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Torridon,

Having a mind without a body would be pointless.


I need more power scotty, ah cannae gie ye more power captain the engines willnae take it captain.

Instead of calling this the Religion and Ethics forum maybe we should just call it the Ethics forum, dangerous territory Gonnagle, one of those pesky theists is bound to mention God, we are after all Homo Religious creatures.

"Homo religiosus," meaning "religious man" or "human being with a religious nature," is a concept that suggests humans possess an inherent, natural inclination towards religious or spiritual experiences and beliefs.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Core Idea:
The concept of homo religiosus, popularized by Mircea Eliade, asserts that religion is not just a cultural phenomenon but a fundamental aspect of human existence, a natural drive towards the sacred and the transcendent.
Inherent Religiosity:
It posits that humans have an innate capacity for religious experience, a search for meaning, purpose, and connection to something beyond the everyday world.
Not About Specific Religions:
Homo religiosus doesn't imply that all humans are necessarily religious in a specific institutional or denominational way, but rather that they are inclined to seek meaning and purpose, which can manifest in various ways, including religious practices, spiritual beliefs, or even a sense of awe and wonder.
Examples:
Scholars like Mircea Eliade, Rudolf Otto, and others have explored this idea, arguing that humans are naturally drawn to the sacred, whether through rituals, myths, or other forms of religious expression.
Contrasting with Homo Sapiens:
While "homo sapiens" refers to humans as a species, "homo religiosus" highlights the religious or spiritual dimension of human nature, suggesting that humans are not only rational and thinking beings but also beings with a deep-seated need for meaning and connection.
 

Gonnagle.

I've had frequent enough discussions with some fellow arrests in here about the idea of removing the propensity for the type of thought that gives rise to religion is about the removal of what it means to be human, that it would be obvious that I agree with this idea. None of that means any specific belief, or even the general concept are validated in any way by it.

[Gordon]

I'd say that most of us, if not all, have thoughts of awe and wonder, or see personal significance in certain things or ideas, or consider the transience of life that applies to us all - and all of us have to deal with the implications of that transience as we lose loved ones, or deal with difficult circumstances. As NS says - it's part of our humanity.

In some people those matters may well incline them towards religion or spirituality and perhaps, for them, that provides support or maybe even helps them come to terms with matters - others, like me, haven't drifted towards religion or spirituality even we do share many of thoughts, feelings, experiences and concerns of those that have.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Can't remember who said it  "we are becoming more intelligent but less human" I would debate the more intelligent bit but are we becoming less human.

Gonnagle.