Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6
Results 101 to 111 of 111
  1. #101
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,827
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    @ belthazor.. I. Regards to the soul definition. I was using it in a more general term, not a philisiophical, religious way. Like a chicken. Soup for your soul kinda way. People recognize something throughout history that we would label a soul. It is the emotional relational side of life, generally. I was just saying that naturalism doesn't have to reject that.. they just define it different.

    As to naturalism actually appealing to a soul.. I don't know, certainly not I the same sense as religion I was just pointing out that I think they can use the word to refer to their ideas in a consistent way.. I agree that it may be confusing.. but I am just open to it being consistent with naturalism.

    Do theists find it easier to define conciousness. No just defining it differently.

    I agree with the definition point. There are a lit of words in this debate that have interesting imolications. Like trying to appeal to an abstract as a naturalist. As far as I can tell those are mutually exclusive ideas.
    To serve man.

  2. #102
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ belthazor.. I. Regards to the soul definition. I was using it in a more general term, not a philisiophical, religious way. Like a chicken. Soup for your soul kinda way. People recognize something throughout history that we would label a soul. It is the emotional relational side of life, generally. I was just saying that naturalism doesn't have to reject that.. they just define it different.

    As to naturalism actually appealing to a soul.. I don't know, certainly not I the same sense as religion I was just pointing out that I think they can use the word to refer to their ideas in a consistent way.. I agree that it may be confusing.. but I am just open to it being consistent with naturalism.

    Do theists find it easier to define conciousness. No just defining it differently.

    I agree with the definition point. There are a lit of words in this debate that have interesting imolications. Like trying to appeal to an abstract as a naturalist. As far as I can tell those are mutually exclusive ideas.
    If your brain is the receiver of thoughts form your soul, it is still obviously capable of processing those same thoughts even with the limits of chemical reactions. I am not seeing a reason why the brain could not initiate those thoughts that being the case

    ---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The claim is that there is no mechanism to select correct thoughts from incorrect thoughts, especially in the course of evolutionary history that lead up to our current brains.
    With regards to evolution, correct thoughts are "rewarded" by staying alive and reproducing. Incorrect thoughts that don't affect reproduction aren't relevant in the context of evolution. IOW, you could still have incorrect thoughts, but they don't matter in the ability to stay alive (kinda like we see in everyday human life. We make mistakes all the time in our thought processes, but it only really matters if the mistakes cause our untimely death).
    I'm still not seeing the conflict I guess.

  3. #103
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And yet Brain state A does lead to brain state B.
    A logical argument is the appeal to something like the thought of a horse leading to the thought of a bunny. .. only.. you know a logical connection.
    I am not sure this is always true. Sometimes one thought has no connection to the next. I could be gardening and suddenly think about what ice cream tastes like. The thought of gardening in no way lead to thinking about ice cream's taste.

  4. #104
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,827
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    If your brain is the receiver of thoughts form your soul, it is still obviously capable of processing those same thoughts even with the limits of chemical reactions. I am not seeing a reason why the brain could not initiate those thoughts that being the case
    The problem is one of causation. Even granting that the chemicals can cause the ideas, as long as the ideas themselves don't have causative powers (which being immaterial they can not) then immaterial laws such as logic, simply are not at work.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    With regards to evolution, correct thoughts are "rewarded" by staying alive and reproducing.
    False. you have assumed causative powers for thoughts that don't exist. It is correct action that is "rewarded" with life.
    The thoughts behind them are not relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Incorrect thoughts that don't affect reproduction aren't relevant in the context of evolution. IOW, you could still have incorrect thoughts, but they don't matter in the ability to stay alive (kinda like we see in everyday human life. We make mistakes all the time in our thought processes, but it only really matters if the mistakes cause our untimely death).
    I'm still not seeing the conflict I guess.
    The challenge is that evolution has no way to weed out incorrect thoughts that lead to correct action.
    Which means evolution is not sufficient to explain the astounding lack of incorrect thoughts leading to correct action.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I am not sure this is always true. Sometimes one thought has no connection to the next.
    That is a false statement given naturalism. Each brain state is directly caused by the one prior (+stimuli). It isn't like one brain state is an uncaused supernatural event.
    To serve man.

  5. #105
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is one of causation. Even granting that the chemicals can cause the ideas, as long as the ideas themselves don't have causative powers (which being immaterial they can not) then immaterial laws such as logic, simply are not at work.
    God being immaterial then could not cause a soul to live nor grant a soul "powers of access to logic"...

    ---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False. you have assumed causative powers for thoughts that don't exist. It is correct action that is "rewarded" with life.
    The thoughts behind them are not relevant.
    Interesting....
    True, correct action is rewarded, but action is a consequence of thought, for no conscious action could result from anything but a thought...

    ---------- Post added at 09:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The challenge is that evolution has no way to weed out incorrect thoughts that lead to correct action.
    Which means evolution is not sufficient to explain the astounding lack of incorrect thoughts leading to correct action.
    False. Incorrect thoughts that don't relate to reproduction are also not related to evolution.

    Memory of past events is the answer to most of this "dilemma" you are trying to address.

    ---------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is a false statement given naturalism. Each brain state is directly caused by the one prior (+stimuli). It isn't like one brain state is an uncaused supernatural event.
    Can you support that a bit more?

    How would those thoughts be connected if a soul existed??
    It is still a random thought, how does a soul make it more palatable?

  6. #106
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,827
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    God being immaterial then could not cause a soul to live nor grant a soul "powers of access to logic"...
    Worse, on naturalism there is no such thing as god.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Interesting....
    True, correct action is rewarded, but action is a consequence of thought, for no conscious action could result from anything but a thought...
    The problem is that incorrect thought can lead to correct action.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    False. Incorrect thoughts that don't relate to reproduction are also not related to evolution.
    That is part of the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Memory of past events is the answer to most of this "dilemma" you are trying to address.
    I don't see how. If the memory is of incorrect logic...that doesn't change the problem at all.
    Also, that requires a "Memory" element.. what about before robust memory? How does evolution get to that point?
    Or rather, are you thus agreeing that up to a robust memory development in the brain that the problem is real?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Can you support that a bit more?
    Neurons fire, causing other neurons to fire. That is one brain state leading to another.
    Granted, some of that brain state is created due to outside stimulie.. light, sound etc.
    Even if we say that a brain state is due to quantum fluctuations, that would still be part of the brain state.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    How would those thoughts be connected if a soul existed??
    Good question.. but not relevant in objections to naturalsim.
    I would say that once we get into the realm of how immaterial things work.. we are outside of our element, as we experience so much in just the physical.
    The answer may be obvious once we die and live in the spirit.
    so.. long winded.. "I don't know specifically".

    I think it is elemental of a will to grasp ideas and handle abstract things like that. The very idea of knowing what one wants, or choose a or -a
    requires one to consider abstract non-physical aspects of ideas. Like the idea of morality. Which is to say one aught to act one way over another.
    if how one acts is just a chemical reaction, necessitated by chemical forces.. It is ludicrous to say that chemicals should not react such and such a way. How delusional would one be to stand on the sea shore and yell at the water "you ought not precipitate!" Yet yelling at a bag of chemical reactions "you should not kill" is not significantly different, even if that bag is dressed up in skin and bone.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    It is still a random thought, how does a soul make it more palatable?
    I don't think it is random. I mean it is caused by the "self".
    To serve man.

  7. #107
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Worse, on naturalism there is no such thing as god.
    True
    I was making Sqatch'ism:

    "If there are only two possible answers, and we eliminate one, it MUST be the other".
    IOW, you are claiming naturalism is wrong and I wash showing Theism wrong as well for the same reason/s.

    So our "two possible " answers are both wrong...hmmm.....

    ---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is that incorrect thought can lead to correct action.
    Very true. Why this matters still escapes me. If one survives to reproduce utilizing some incorrect thoughts along the way it matters little. Most thoughts (that matter to survival) will be correct out of necessity or one will not reproduce.

    ---------- Post added at 06:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The challenge is that evolution has no way to weed out incorrect thoughts that lead to correct action.
    Which means evolution is not sufficient to explain the astounding lack of incorrect thoughts leading to correct action.
    You keep saying this based on a particular incorrect thought could still lead to a positive conclusion. What you leave out is how often this might be the case. One can not continually have incorrect thoughts that result in positive outcomes (from a reproduction point of view). Evolution speaks to "change in populations over time". Incorrect thoughts will generally lead to incorrect outcomes. It is a naturally correcting occurrence.

    ---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Good question.. but not relevant in objections to naturalsim.
    I would say that once we get into the realm of how immaterial things work.. we are outside of our element, as we experience so much in just the physical.
    The answer may be obvious once we die and live in the spirit.
    so.. long winded.. "I don't know specifically".
    I really appreciate your candor
    I think this whole post of yours has been the most clear of what you are trying to get across.

    But to this particular part of your post:

    Now if we could just have a reason to believe the soul exists (apart from the Bible).

    ---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think it is random. I mean it is caused by the "self".
    If there is a soul would not random thoughts be caused by that "self"?
    In what way would it be different?
    Last edited by Belthazor; January 15th, 2019 at 06:48 PM.

  8. #108
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,827
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    True
    I was making Sqatch'ism:

    "If there are only two possible answers, and we eliminate one, it MUST be the other".
    IOW, you are claiming naturalism is wrong and I wash showing Theism wrong as well for the same reason/s.

    So our "two possible " answers are both wrong...hmmm.....
    That the ideas presented here apply the same to Theism, is not what I have been addressing, and would need it's own thread to evaluat IMO.
    but I am open to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Very true. Why this matters still escapes me. If one survives to reproduce utilizing some incorrect thoughts along the way it matters little. Most thoughts (that matter to survival) will be correct out of necessity or one will not reproduce.
    That is not true. There are far, far more incorrect thoughts that would lead to survival. We would thus expect most thoughts connected to survival to be illogical in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    You keep saying this based on a particular incorrect thought could still lead to a positive conclusion. What you leave out is how often this might be the case. One can not continually have incorrect thoughts that result in positive outcomes (from a reproduction point of view). Evolution speaks to "change in populations over time". Incorrect thoughts will generally lead to incorrect outcomes. It is a naturally correcting occurrence.
    Not at all. Again, there is only one correct thought, but infinite number of incorrect thoughts that would lead to reproduction.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I really appreciate your candor
    I think this whole post of yours has been the most clear of what you are trying to get across.

    But to this particular part of your post:

    Now if we could just have a reason to believe the soul exists (apart from the Bible).
    Well, there is a test.. and everyone takes it.
    It's called death.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    If there is a soul would not random thoughts be caused by that "self"?
    In what way would it be different?
    That would depend on the nature of the self.
    To serve man.

  9. #109
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That the ideas presented here apply the same to Theism, is not what I have been addressing, and would need it's own thread to evaluat IMO.
    but I am open to that.
    Awesome
    I have never started a thread on ODN, how does it work? IOW, how do you do it?

    But agreed, I will leave this point for a different thread.

    ---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not true. There are far, far more incorrect thoughts that would lead to survival. We would thus expect most thoughts connected to survival to be illogical in nature.
    Let's say I agree.

    Whether we have a soul or not, this would still be true....

    Um...guess this should go to the other thread as well....

    ---------- Post added at 07:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Not at all. Again, there is only one correct thought, but infinite number of incorrect thoughts that would lead to reproduction.
    Maybe this is why humans struggle so much with the issues of life...

    ---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, there is a test.. and everyone takes it.
    It's called death.
    Agreed.
    Though if there is "life after death" (it just defeats the meaning of the words. Reminds me of PC'ness!!! Let me give two more !!'s just for Cowboy there could be communication of such a situation.'
    If dead is dead (like where you were before you were born) then we would expect no communication which is also what we observe or lack observing....

    ---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That would depend on the nature of the self.
    Would you take another stab at this, I'm not getting it...

  10. #110
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,827
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Would you take another stab at this, I'm not getting it...
    Well, if the self is not capable of random thoughts, like what if the thoughts have to be relevant to the self.
    I mean if we are created, then the creator can put in parameters, so as to make completely random thoughts impossible..... or not.. just saying it depend on the nature of the self.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Agreed.
    Though if there is "life after death" (it just defeats the meaning of the words. Reminds me of PC'ness!!! Let me give two more !!'s just for Cowboy there could be communication of such a situation.'
    If dead is dead (like where you were before you were born) then we would expect no communication which is also what we observe or lack observing....
    No, those are not inherently contradictory words. Once one says that they are a soul and a body. Then death can refer to the death of the body, and life can refer to the life of the soul without the body.
    Only if you define life as purely the physical body, would the terms be contradictory, and as we are referring to a soul.. in that context it isn't.
    As the bible would say flesh give birth to flesh but spirit gives birth to spirit. (john 3:6) paraphrased.
    To serve man.

  11. #111
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, if the self is not capable of random thoughts, like what if the thoughts have to be relevant to the self.
    I mean if we are created, then the creator can put in parameters, so as to make completely random thoughts impossible..... or not.. just saying it depend on the nature of the self.
    I think this could be at issue with free will.

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, those are not inherently contradictory words.
    I said nothing like "contradictory"?

    ---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, those are not inherently contradictory words. Once one says that they are a soul and a body. Then death can refer to the death of the body, and life can refer to the life of the soul without the body.
    I understand your contention and perhaps you are correct. My point was, it would render the typically used definition of the word untenable.

    IOW, parts of my body "dying" happens every single day, but if the "mind/soul" lives on past the whole body dying totally, you just aren't really dying are you or the word has to be redefined?
    Your body would not be "you" in this scenario, so it dying only makes it so you can no longer communicate with people who are still "trapped in a body". You are still alive and no real death of a soul occurred.

 

 
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trap's
    By MindTrap028 in forum Logical Riddles & Puzzles
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: November 26th, 2011, 04:22 PM
  2. Mind Trap #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: June 13th, 2009, 06:44 PM
  3. Mind Trap VS The Dog
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: March 24th, 2009, 11:49 PM
  4. Mind Trap Got hit
    By MindTrap028 in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 21st, 2008, 05:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •