Jim here's more fun

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9997
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Jim here's more fun

Post by Metacrock » Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:00 pm

Dr. Reppert
My existence, here and now
At the end of the day there has to be an "us," a me, and a you, as actual beings. But if physicalism what there is are particles, and people can add those particles up and call them a "me" or a "you." It is often said that physicalism threatens the idea of a future existence beyond the grave, and we don't like that. Actually, it threatens my present existence here and now. I don't see you avoid reducing it to some kind of "user illusion."
Dusty
tardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said..August 26, 2017 10:55 AM.

" I am not determined,I don't have to say these things I cud avoid it if I wished."
--Then that would be what is determined.

Free will is an illusion. Of course you feel yourself making decisions, so you have the sense of freedom. That is the illusion, that false sense of freedom.

You do what you want, so you feel free, but what controls your wants? One day you feel like vanilla so you choose vanilla. The next day you feel like chocolate, so you choose chocolate. You sense yourself making choices, so you feel free. But where did your want for vanilla come from one day and your want for chocolate come from the next day?

Free will is an illusion on several grounds. On determinism you are not free, and on indeterminism you are still a slave to whatever randomly pops into your being.

On studies of neural signals you are not free since your decision is made before you even know it.

On an omniscient god you cannot be free in any sense. You can only do 1 thing, the thing the omniscient god already knows you will do.
August 26, 2017 11:20 AM
Keith Barracks said...
The point of the Argument is that if all emergent laws and properties can be reduced down to Edwards matter energy or put simply, some deterministic material on the most basic level, then it follows that the only thing that truely exists would be the most basic elements in combination and in action. It's absurd to say that some combination of these elements produces something greater then it's parts; that a new law or property arises in a sense ex Nihilo if reductionism is true.

And with that said, You and I aren't persons at all, but a all combination of deterministic material. We've been decieved into believing that we are actually "people"; that we are more then the sum of our material parts. You and I are simply matter- energy or deterministic material. We are nothing but elaborate sticks and stones.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 7198381865
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

JBSptfn
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:45 pm

Re: Jim here's more fun

Post by JBSptfn » Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:55 pm

Stardusty is someone who comments on Skep's blog from time to time. Not surprising that you are arguing with him.

You should also check this first comment out from Ed Babinski, a person who Holding has had problems with in the past:
Particles? Is that literally what physicalism says? Today we know energy and matter are the same mysterious thing, matter-energy. And it can travel as fast as light. And inside the human brain there are a trillion interconnecting links between a hundred billion or more cells, constantly processing, even during dreamless sleep. And those cells grow and change in response to a lifetime of sensory input and in conversation with each other, and in conversation socially with other human beings, growing and changing. Consciousness is a process, a holistic process. Yes, it is difficult to find "you" or "I" when studying only a part of the brain-mind-nervous-body-socially engaged system. What kind of "I" does a person possess, what kind of self-knowledge, if they are raised with little to no human contact from birth onward, in an isolated ward of an orphanage? They will have learning difficulties their entire lives. While Koko the gorilla, raised by humans, with constant sensory contact and enrichment and a teacher, developed an enriched brain, and can express herself in sign language, even has a sense of "I," and a sense of her death as well, judging by an anecdote in which she was asked where gorillas go when they die. She responded, "comfortable hole, bye."
Sounds like another atheist combining consciousness with cognitive function.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 9997
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Jim here's more fun

Post by Metacrock » Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:08 am

yes exactly,k I liked your comment on that blog
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Jim here's more fun

Post by Jim B. » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:33 pm

Metacrock wrote:Dr. Reppert
My existence, here and now
At the end of the day there has to be an "us," a me, and a you, as actual beings. But if physicalism what there is are particles, and people can add those particles up and call them a "me" or a "you." It is often said that physicalism threatens the idea of a future existence beyond the grave, and we don't like that. Actually, it threatens my present existence here and now. I don't see you avoid reducing it to some kind of "user illusion."
Dusty
tardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said..August 26, 2017 10:55 AM.

" I am not determined,I don't have to say these things I cud avoid it if I wished."
--Then that would be what is determined.

Free will is an illusion. Of course you feel yourself making decisions, so you have the sense of freedom. That is the illusion, that false sense of freedom.

You do what you want, so you feel free, but what controls your wants? One day you feel like vanilla so you choose vanilla. The next day you feel like chocolate, so you choose chocolate. You sense yourself making choices, so you feel free. But where did your want for vanilla come from one day and your want for chocolate come from the next day?

Free will is an illusion on several grounds. On determinism you are not free, and on indeterminism you are still a slave to whatever randomly pops into your being.

On studies of neural signals you are not free since your decision is made before you even know it.

On an omniscient god you cannot be free in any sense. You can only do 1 thing, the thing the omniscient god already knows you will do.
August 26, 2017 11:20 AM
Keith Barracks said...
The point of the Argument is that if all emergent laws and properties can be reduced down to Edwards matter energy or put simply, some deterministic material on the most basic level, then it follows that the only thing that truely exists would be the most basic elements in combination and in action. It's absurd to say that some combination of these elements produces something greater then it's parts; that a new law or property arises in a sense ex Nihilo if reductionism is true.

And with that said, You and I aren't persons at all, but a all combination of deterministic material. We've been decieved into believing that we are actually "people"; that we are more then the sum of our material parts. You and I are simply matter- energy or deterministic material. We are nothing but elaborate sticks and stones.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 7198381865
He sounds even worse than skep. I didn't think that was possible.

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Jim here's more fun

Post by met » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:21 pm

We've been decieved into believing that we are actually "people"
I so love this sentence! 8-)

I so agree with this sentence! :ugeek:
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Jim here's more fun

Post by Jim B. » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:22 pm

met wrote:
We've been decieved into believing that we are actually "people"
I so love this sentence! 8-)

I so agree with this sentence! :ugeek:
RU serious?!? :o Explain, node of sentience.

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Jim here's more fun

Post by met » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:44 pm

Dunno.....

These are just beautiful sentences....perhaps the mode mat be understood in some poetic sentence tho? 8-) we are all capable of more depth and poetry than we think.....
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Jim here's more fun

Post by Jim B. » Mon Sep 04, 2017 5:46 pm

met wrote:Dunno.....

These are just beautiful sentences....perhaps the mode mat be understood in some poetic sentence tho? 8-) we are all capable of more depth and poetry than we think.....

But....you said you agreed with it, as well as loved it, so I thought you took it at least in part as propositional and not just as poetic. Sure, that sentence can be interpreted in a poetic mode but in the context of Dusty's post it struck me as closer to a desire to dissolve poetics, to 'unweave the rainbow' (not to reignite the old debate I had with Pix over rainbows! ;) ) something like that?

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Jim here's more fun

Post by met » Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:02 pm

Well, okay, you do realize his gist there IS in tune, in certain key senses with foucaldian, Derridean and Butlerian themes and concerns that interest me? Translating his notion into post-structuralist terms, one might say, "It means we all performatively perform "people" acts prelaid out for us by all thos ineluctable socio-lingo-historical patterns stemming from the flow of pouvoir-saviour thru-out every level and more of every human society". Or some such....

Then the open and unattended question here would be, of course.... "Okay, but if we aren't really "people", what are we?" Are we, for certain, by the power of such definitions, Known to be absolutely nothing but effect? Perhaps what we really are is "something else," perhaps we embody some otherness that "peoplehood" cannot subsume, or define, and perhaps that something else transcends all the fictions and all the narratives of those delimiting constructs of "ourselves" that we create, are created for us, and we cling to out of fear and ignorance, or ... I dunno ....something else? .... hmmm.... :ugeek:
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Jim here's more fun

Post by Jim B. » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:35 am

met wrote:Well, okay, you do realize his gist there IS in tune, in certain key senses with foucaldian, Derridean and Butlerian themes and concerns that interest me? Translating his notion into post-structuralist terms, one might say, "It means we all performatively perform "people" acts prelaid out for us by all thos ineluctable socio-lingo-historical patterns stemming from the flow of pouvoir-saviour thru-out every level and more of every human society". Or some such....

Then the open and unattended question here would be, of course.... "Okay, but if we aren't really "people", what are we?" Are we, for certain, by the power of such definitions, Known to be absolutely nothing but effect? Perhaps what we really are is "something else," perhaps we embody some otherness that "peoplehood" cannot subsume, or define, and perhaps that something else transcends all the fictions and all the narratives of those delimiting constructs of "ourselves" that we create, are created for us, and we cling to out of fear and ignorance, or ... I dunno ....something else? .... hmmm.... :ugeek:
I didn't get any of that from those posts. He's not using critical analysis along Foucauldian lines to say we aren;t people but along hard reductionist lines that result from uncritically accepting a given ideology of science. Your analysis seems light years more sophisitcated. If anything, his gist is the opposite of what you're talking about, or seems that way to me, in uncritically taking on a truth regime as transparent self-evident truth.

Post Reply