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 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 69
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Short reply, because the basis of your response is built on an incorrect understanding of the argument at the most basic level.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The critique is based on totally unfounded assumptions. It assumes that logic should have a force, and it assumes that peoples thoughts should always be truth. Both are largely unfounded presuppositions.
    False, the argument is that on naturalism such a force does not exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Ideas are only representational. That is the possition of naturalism (or at least my version of it) so that would not be a critique at all. It is only a critique if you assume there is some proof that ideas do have an existence beyond being representations. That is the falsee assumption I was attacking.
    That is simply not the assumption being expressed. In fact, it is the opposite.

    The first wall, as stated specifically relies on the assertion that you have repeatedly affirmed several times in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Ideas to dot have causal poweers, who said they did or should?
    Listen.. really.. really listen.
    Wall #1 does not say they do or should, it does not imply this reaction. in fact.. wall #1 IS THIS very statement.

    You clearly have not grasped what wall #1 is. Please go back and read it with these corrections in mind.
    To serve man.

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,107
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trapped by: One Trap to rule them all

    I'm going to miss your Mind Traps. You should start a blog or something!

    To all the atheist who ask for evidence of the "super natural". Of some instance of our natural world being effected by some element that is beyond the natural world. This is it. Consciousness and access to logic can not be created in the natural world. Nothing in the natural world can ascribe "meaning" and meta-physical consequence to any given set of natural conditions, or arrangement of atoms. The physical is nothing more than a complex Newtons cradle. The Atheist statement of faith(for lack of a better term) "The cosmos is all there is, or was or ever will be." Is wrong, and we experience the falsification every moment.
    I think an honest atheist, although seeing the flaws in your world view, particularly around the idea of the supernatural, would simply answer: "I don't know but I know it's not what religions tell us: we have enough actual evidence including contemporaneous ones how easily manipulable people can be when given a view of the universe that blows their mind".

    The idea of what the 'self' is, how we make sense of the world, and how we remember things, and draw conclusions, ideas and then come up with models, is one of life's great mysteries. We're learning more about this meta-physical world because we're actually using it and manipulating it: in advertising, political campaigns, influencers on social media, Cambridge Analytics, the government agencies, and religions since forever. These groups have been been trying to understand what makes us tick, and then figuring out how to make us 'tock'.

    All of this stuff we are learning about how the human mind works makes much more sense than some “magic man” in the sky or some other religious variant that is just as implausible, improbable and certainly unproven.

    So your point that without religion (A-theism) doesn’t have a good answer is only partially true. The true part is that it doesn’t have an answer but the other true part is that it remains the best way to approach the problem; and it is the best approach because religious approaches haven’t become stronger with time but weaker.

    I also don't think "The cosmos is all there is" is a good Atheist statement at all: it's true that it is currently all we have evidence for but to make further claims makes little sense.

    – Preaching section
    This is why Christians say, that the atheist must sit in the lap of God in order to slap his face. The atheist must appeal to consciousness and logic, which he can not establish or justify his own use of. My response to those who have asked, “why do you believe in God”, has been “Because it is obvious”. For me reason Atheism fails to be a consistent and viable world view, is because it must consistently borrow from the ideas of Christianity, and make assumptions that do not make sense upon it's own self.


    Another way to put this and strip out all the mysterious terms is that atheists need to have theists in order to justify their viewpoints: it’s in the word “a-theism”. We also live in a Western world, with hundreds of years of established customs and laws and ideas that have been shown to be consistently wrong, ill-informed and frankly immoral both explicitly and in not addressing issues that are obvious to the modern mind religion has failed to adapt. The problem you see in atheism not being “consistent” is untrue since it is based on the same science and the “borrowing” of ideas just means that there is some good stuff in Christianity: it’s just that this “good stuff” doesn’t need magic.

    All of this doesn't lend Christianity any credibility at all: atheists and progressives are changing the world for the better. We are not so much sitting on the lap of God as telling Christians your moral foundation has failed the world and we need to do better.

    The atheist rejects God on moral grounds, but can not establish morality other than in terms of personal preference. When the question of “Why is there evil in the world”, if taken to be understood as “why are there things I don't like in the world”, losses it's force. The atheist often portraits himself as being the most logical, but must take our access to logic and it's metaphysical force on faith, that contradicts his entire naturalistic world view.
    Atheism doesn't reject God on moral grounds: atheists do not believe in God. They are rejecting the tenants of Christianity that do not accord to evidence or modern morality. To suggest that there's no answer to "why there is evil" without referring a deity is nonsense: we have ideas from science as to why people do bad things, we have evidence from criminals as to why they behave they do, we have many studies about evil from history, psychology, anthropology, philosophy and nearly every social media or online community has had to deal with this in many different ways and they don't need a deity to figure out how to deal with it.

    Think about ODN: does it appeal to God for infractions or banning? No it doesn't - it's rules are entirely based on reason and actions based on facts. Adding a deity into the mix would makes things so much more complicated that it's clear why religions are losing their power; and even adding a particular religious viewpoint is nonsensical, which shows why the religious moral is losing ground.

    So the answer is already in front of you: it may well be that atheism doesn't have the history or the single point of view that religions claim they have with their "god" but it's clear that religion is becoming less effective and less useful and that secularism and ultimately atheism is the way to go.
    Last edited by SharmaK; December 2nd, 2018 at 03:13 PM.

  3. Thanks Sigfried, MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  4. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,257
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    False, the argument is that on naturalism such a force does not exist.
    But why is that even an argument? Naturalism doesn't make any such claims, so why is it a critique to say they can't show such? It's nonsensical.

    The first wall, as stated specifically relies on the assertion that you have repeatedly affirmed several times in this thread.
    Honestly the more you try to rebuttal the less I understand what you are trying to argue.

    Listen.. really.. really listen.
    Wall #1 does not say they do or should, it does not imply this reaction. in fact.. wall #1 IS THIS very statement.
    Then how is it a critique of naturalism? It's like critiquing atheist for arguing they don't believe in God. I'd say, well ya, of course, what of it?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. Likes futureboy liked this post
  6. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    @ Sig, because it has some very significant implications. The largest is that it doesn't make sense with what we actually experience. Your responses here, certainly haven't accounted for the point being made, and it's pretty significant.

    The most interesting implication to me is this.
    That a given brain state, that represents a given idea, could have been a representation of ANY idea, or no idea at all.
    This opens up a huge door for the kind of "design" argument.

    Another, is that certain ideas may not be represented in our universe. Like, suppose cold fusion is possible, but there is no brain state
    that just so happens to correlate to that idea which would bring it about.
    To serve man.

  7. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,257
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ Sig, because it has some very significant implications. The largest is that it doesn't make sense with what we actually experience. Your responses here, certainly haven't accounted for the point being made, and it's pretty significant.
    I don't see how. I find this whole notion that we build a construct, and then the world needs to follow from that as being a good way to find knowledge. First, we have to accept that the universe is as it is, and we then will discover it. Our construct is just our own mental metaphor for the reality around us. When our mental construct is accurate, we get **** done. When it is inacurate we find life is much harder to live.

    My naturalist view is built from observing how the universe operates. Not by trying to construct some notion and then seeing if it fits the universe after I've conjured it up.

    The most interesting implication to me is this.
    That a given brain state, that represents a given idea, could have been a representation of ANY idea, or no idea at all.
    What? Look, a brian state is an idea and an idea is a brains state. Just like a picture is ink on paper and ink on paper is a picture. Brain states are the objective truth, ideas are the subjective experience. Ideas don't exist outside of our brains, they have no fundamental truth to them. They are only true when they happen to coinside with reality.

    A person who is blind can't really have a brain state corrisponding to color. A seeing person can. But differnet people "see" color differently based on the biology of their eye. None of that changes the nature of reality. Those "ideas" are just representations. And having them or not having them doesn't change the world around us. It only changes the world within us.

    I don't see how any of that fails to comport with reality as we experience it. Can you make reality change to your ideas somehow? I can't. I don't know of anyone who can.

    This opens up a huge door for the kind of "design" argument.
    How so? This all seems to some kind of backwards thinking to justify religious beleif. Got to have a designer so my thoughts can be "real." Rocks are reel, we didn't design them. We couldn't see them if light didn't boucne off of them, or feel them if we didn't have nerve endings. There are radio waves zooming all around us and we have no clue, no ideas they exist. Yet they do. So whatever you think, its irrelivant to the nature of reality. It just so happens, the way we think is based on input and that input is physical so it has a predictible impact on our physical mind. You have to accurately know where the food is to get it, so survival works out such that our minds are somewhat accurate, accurate enough to get fed and survive. THere is no need to design that. You could, but it is also simply in keeping with the general principles on which the universe seems to operate.
    .
    Another is that certain ideas may not be represented in our universe. Like, suppose cold fusion is possible, but there is no brain state
    that just so happens to correlate to that idea which would bring it about.
    So you are saying if I can imagine rainbow farting unicorns there must be a universe where rainbow farting unicorns are real? Look cold fusion is a symbolic construction. We know cold, we know fusion, so we imagine cold fusion. We like the idea because it would be a useful tool for us. Like I said, this is what our fore-brain is really for. It is a prediction engine. If we do X - then I can get Y to happen. It isn't always all that accurate so we have to experiment to test this mental model. Then we find out if it is accurate or inaccurate with reality. But it doesn't exist indipendently of reality as some magical ideal.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. Thanks futureboy thanked for this post
  9. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't see how. I find this whole notion that we build a construct, and then the world needs to follow from that as being a good way to find knowledge. First, we have to accept that the universe is as it is, and we then will discover it. Our construct is just our own mental metaphor for the reality around us. When our mental construct is accurate, we get **** done. When it is inacurate we find life is much harder to live.

    My naturalist view is built from observing how the universe operates. Not by trying to construct some notion and then seeing if it fits the universe after I've conjured it up.
    Well, that is a healthy dose of question begging.
    My op-undercuts everything you just said.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What? Look, a brian state is an idea and an idea is a brains state. Just like a picture is ink on paper and ink on paper is a picture. Brain states are the objective truth, ideas are the subjective experience. Ideas don't exist outside of our brains, they have no fundamental truth to them. They are only true when they happen to coinside with reality.
    No, this is where you are off track. A given brain state is not necissary connection to the idea that it coencides with.
    So that brain state A could just as easly represent any idea.
    Brain states are construced due to the chemical/physical laws at play, not a building of ideas one on another as though the idea had some effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    A person who is blind can't really have a brain state corrisponding to color. A seeing person can. But differnet people "see" color differently based on the biology of their eye. None of that changes the nature of reality. Those "ideas" are just representations. And having them or not having them doesn't change the world around us. It only changes the world within us.

    I don't see how any of that fails to comport with reality as we experience it. Can you make reality change to your ideas somehow? I can't. I don't know of anyone who can.
    I don't know where you are going with this.
    Exactly what idea are your responding too? It doesn't appear to be connected to what you quoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    How so? This all seems to some kind of backwards thinking to justify religious beleif. Got to have a designer so my thoughts can be "real.
    Not even close to what I was saying.
    The design would be that the physical world is connected to accurate ideas at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So you are saying if I can imagine rainbow farting unicorns there must be a universe where rainbow farting unicorns are real?
    Good Lord. No!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Look cold fusion is a symbolic construction. We know cold, we know fusion, so we imagine cold fusion. We like the idea because it would be a useful tool for us. Like I said, this is what our fore-brain is really for. It is a prediction engine. If we do X - then I can get Y to happen. It isn't always all that accurate so we have to experiment to test this mental model. Then we find out if it is accurate or inaccurate with reality. But it doesn't exist indipendently of reality as some magical ideal.
    Totally missing the point.... geez.. like a lot, lot.
    I mean to the point where you are just straw-manning things all over.

    The idea was simply to point out that there may be no possible physical correlation to some actually possible idea.

    Basically, there may be something that you simply can't think of, not because it is impossible in our actual world, but because no possible brain state represents it.
    To serve man.

  10. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    682
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Basically, there may be something that you simply can't think of, not because it is impossible in our actual world, but because no possible brain state represents it.
    This still sounds like you are saying the brain is like a tv/radio. Receiving "ideas" but unable to create "ideas" by itself?
    Is this correct?

  11. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHZOR
    This still sounds like you are saying the brain is like a tv/radio. Receiving "ideas" but unable to create "ideas" by itself?
    Is this correct?
    What you quoted, is not intended to convey that meaning. That is my personal position, and I think the ultimate conclusion of the argument, but again the point you are quoting is not saying that.


    I am really not sure why so many points are tripping you guys up, so that ya'll come away so off from it's meanings or implications.
    I mean, the point you quoted.... it's like.
    Suppose I was saying that pink elephants could possibly exist, but may ultimately never exist in our universe because matter never forms a pink elephant.
    That doesn't seem to me to be very controversial, or something one would object too.
    but when I apply that to the existence of ideas. That maybe some idea will simply never exist in our universe, because it isn't represented by any physical state, such as a brain state.

    I thought it was pretty interesting to suppose that maybe the reason you can't think of a solution to a given problem, or the reason you can't grasp any given concept, is because there is no possible brain state that contains it for you or me or anyone, or everyone.

    Apparently it is a pretty deep mind trap indeed, because not a single person is getting this that is responding.. and I'm sorry I don't know how to express it better for you guys.

    ----
    Alternative response...
    ----
    One of my ultimate points, is that the brain doesn't create ideas. Ideas are UN-necissarily linked to specific brain states.
    Your current brain state, could just as well be linked to some other idea, or no idea at all. The brain doesn't need you to experience an idea, it's function is completely separate from that.
    Evolution picks function, not abstract ideas.

    Question
    Sig equates brain states with ideas. .. Do you agree with that?

    I mean, are you guys really saying that A follows from B logically, because those two brain states just so happen to be chronologically linked?
    To serve man.

  12. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    682
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am really not sure why so many points are tripping you guys up
    Well, I'm sure the fault lies with us

  13. #30
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    The whole problem with your claim is the assumption that the human capacity for creativity doesn't exist; that the realm of "ideas" is some kind of special dimension that demands some kind of tuner to access - namely the human brain.

    Why should anyone accept that? Why should anyone even entertain such a possibility?

  14. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    682
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What you quoted, is not intended to convey that meaning. That is my personal position, and I think the ultimate conclusion of the argument,
    If it is the "ultimate conclusion", then perhaps I am making progress to understanding what you mean.

    I will ponder your "pink elephants" a bit. This seams clearer way to express your position than your previous attempts...

    ---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    The whole problem with your claim is the assumption that the human capacity for creativity doesn't exist; that the realm of "ideas" is some kind of special dimension that demands some kind of tuner to access - namely the human brain.

    Why should anyone accept that? Why should anyone even entertain such a possibility?
    I think MT is saying the electro/chemical actions of the brain are limited because of those reactions are limited. That there are only so many combinations available, and so in a materialist world view, thoughts/ideas are limited by these reactions.

    Truly novel concepts would not be available to us, as we are limited by the electro/chemical reactions that are available.

    @MT,
    How did I do this time?

  15. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    The whole problem with your claim is the assumption that the human capacity for creativity doesn't exist; that the realm of "ideas" is some kind of special dimension that demands some kind of tuner to access - namely the human brain.
    Well, not that it doesn't exist in actuality, but that it isn't accounted for on naturalism.
    On naturalism your ideas are based on chemical reactions not your personal creativity, or by any force of idea.

    The reason you think "hey I can open this with that thing over there" is not because you are personally creative, but because chemical X reacted with Chemical Y necessarily, and just so happen to correlate with your experience of the ideas "this here", and "that there"

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Why should anyone accept that? Why should anyone even entertain such a possibility?
    First, you need to evaluate if I am representing naturalism correctly. Such as above. Something simple like, did you think to use your key in the lock, because the abstract of locks and keys, or because of naturalist and necissary chemical reactions?
    1- If I am correct, then you are agreeing with the thing which you suggest we should reject. Namely, that human creativity doesn't exist.
    2- If I am incorrect, then you need to explain how you are avoiding the use of the duelist assumptions, such as Ideas having force, or ideas originating in a super natural manner. Mind you, you dont "need" to do this because you have some burden of evidence (though I think you would to some extent) rather, because I want to understand it.


    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I think MT is saying the electro/chemical actions of the brain are limited because of those reactions are limited. That there are only so many combinations available, and so in a materialist world view, thoughts/ideas are limited by these reactions.

    Truly novel concepts would not be available to us, as we are limited by the electro/chemical reactions that are available.

    @MT,
    How did I do this time?
    Your in the right neighborhood.
    Though here I am not relying on the number of possible combinations (though that is as good point as well, as that limit certainly exists).
    Mine is more about a simple lack of necessity.
    The Chinese Buffet doesn't have egg-rolls, because it isn't necessary to have egg-rolls on the buffet.
    Same with the non existent yet possible idea, and a correlating state of matter.
    matter has no need to correlate to any specific idea, or any idea at all. That it does is not accounted for on naturalism, and thus our experience is not intelligible on naturalism.
    To serve man.

  16. #33
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, not that it doesn't exist in actuality, but that it isn't accounted for on naturalism.
    What do you mean when you say creativity isn't accounted for on naturalism? The fact that we don't fully understand a phenomenon doesn't mean there's something supernatural about it. We observe consciousness in the natural world, so what does you mean when you say it's isn't accounted for?

    You seem to be claiming that chemical reactions cannot give rise to consciousness and, by extension, to creativity. I just don't see any reason to accept that. Nowhere in this thread has anyone offered anything even remotely compelling with regards to there being some need for something "extra" to account for human creativity.

  17. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  18. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    What do you mean when you say creativity isn't accounted for on naturalism?
    Excellent question.

    Creativity is a consequential manipulation of ideas. Such that one abstract idea, effects some other abstract idea.
    Creativity, is officially defined as "the ability to produce original and unusual ideas, or to make something new or imaginative" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...ish/creativity

    The manipulation of ideas, with the force or effects of other ideas, is specifically outside the possibility for chemical reactions. As, it is the chemical laws that dictate the reactions, not spiritually charged notion "imagination".

    This is the essence of the first wall.



    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    The fact that we don't fully understand a phenomenon doesn't mean there's something supernatural about it. We observe consciousness in the natural world, so what does you mean when you say it's isn't accounted for?
    Please carefully note, that I am not appealing to the unknown. I am not saying that "naturalism doesn't know how this is done, therefore, it must be magic".
    I am arguing
    Ideas having causal powers over the physical world are logically inconsistent with naturalism and can not co-exist. Therefore naturalism is insufficient to account for a causal interaction of ideas on the physical world.


    Quote Originally Posted by dio
    You seem to be claiming that chemical reactions cannot give rise to consciousness and, by extension, to creativity. I just don't see any reason to accept that. Nowhere in this thread has anyone offered anything even remotely compelling with regards to there being some need for something "extra" to account for human creativity.
    Here, I have basically conceded that conciseness can arise. Specifically, that it is an effect of chemical reactions.
    The wall I have pointed out still stands though. As the consciousness (IE our experience of the chemicals) is itself not causative of anything. It is simply an effect.
    This is noted by atheists who say that consciousness is ultimately an illusion. (Daniel Dennett for one)
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...iousness-real/

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    We observe consciousness in the natural world, so what does you mean when you say it's isn't accounted for?
    Just because we observe it, doesn't mean that naturalism is sufficient to explain it/cause/account for it.
    To serve man.

  19. #35
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Ideas having causal powers over the physical world are logically inconsistent with naturalism and can not co-exist.
    Please explain and support this a little better. Are you claiming that because ideas are conceptualized in the mind, that it is impossible for them to have been thought without some special, supernatural component?

    How on earth would ANYTHING be brought to fruition if that were true? How could anyone have the individual will to do anything - from checking a gas station for a bathroom, to photographing a quark - if there were this mind/brain barrier that prevents imagined things for being realized? Ideas don't have to be profound to be ideas. They're just thoughts.

    Your "trap" presents a pretty big problem for the Christian concept of free will and moral accountability. If humans require a special, supernatural "tuner" in order to access ideas, then why can't we just say that any imagined action that happens to be morally good is a product of an adequate tuner? Why can't we say that any immoral action is the product of a badly calibrated tuner? If a person happens to have gotten a shitty tuner, in what way are they accountable for that? Also, if a person cannot have a thought without this tuner, isn't it also true that they cannot AVOID thoughts with it? And if they cannot avoid having thoughts, that is, if they cannot choose NOT to have thoughts, in what sense is their will free? In what sense are they free to choose which thoughts resonate with them and which don't?

  20. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  21. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Please explain and support this a little better. Are you claiming that because ideas are conceptualized in the mind, that it is impossible for them to have been thought without some special, supernatural component?
    My point is about the direction of causality in regards to thoughts and ideas.
    *ANALOGY TIME*
    So, on naturalism the mind is like a movie projection in an old theater. Images appear on the wall, and the images are real. The images themselves are our consciousness, which is also real.
    One day, the projection is of the word "fire", and the theater burns down.

    My point, is that the theater burned down, because of the physical forces at play in the theater, not because of the abstract meaning of the word "fire".

    Notice the direction of causality? The entire theater is the cause of the image, purely natural.. complex.. amazing. But the ideas in the image have no causal powers.

    -
    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    How on earth would ANYTHING be brought to fruition if that were true? How could anyone have the individual will to do anything - from checking a gas station for a bathroom, to photographing a quark - if there were this mind/brain barrier that prevents imagined things for being realized? Ideas don't have to be profound to be ideas. They're just thoughts.
    I'm not certain I understand your objection.
    I mean, my ultimate argument is in the form of explaining what naturalism defines and how it explains the world, and then showing how it is inadequate and incapable of making sense of our actual experience of the world.
    You seem to be saying that because we experience the world a certain way, thus naturalism MUST be a sufficient explanation.. otherwise how would we get anything done.

    That just seems to be question begging.. or God of the gaps for naturalism.. a "naturalism of the gaps".


    ----------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Your "trap" presents a pretty big problem for the Christian concept of free will and moral accountability. If humans require a special, supernatural "tuner" in order to access ideas, then why can't we just say that any imagined action that happens to be morally good is a product of an adequate tuner? Why can't we say that any immoral action is the product of a badly calibrated tuner? If a person happens to have gotten a shitty tuner, in what way are they accountable for that? Also, if a person cannot have a thought without this tuner, isn't it also true that they cannot AVOID thoughts with it? And if they cannot avoid having thoughts, that is, if they cannot choose NOT to have thoughts, in what sense is their will free? In what sense are they free to choose which thoughts resonate with them and which don't?
    So, first of all.. this is a very interesting rabbit. I think you should know that the point of this thread is to cause thought about such deep things, because I think many, many implications are there.
    I do not deny that interesting implications could then also apply to Christian concepts. But here.. I am expressing and defending the validity of the two walls.
    If it is ultimately a wrecking ball for everyone's philosophy.. so be it... as long as the two walls are sound.

    So, if you are ultimately willing to concede that the two walls are sound, and thus naturalism is insufficient.. I would be more than happy to engage you in another thread on the implications for Christianity.
    To serve man.

  22. #37
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, on naturalism the mind is like a movie projection in an old theater.

    ...

    So, if you are ultimately willing to concede that the two walls are sound, and thus naturalism is insufficient.
    First, I'm not willing to concede any walls are sound, because I've yet to see a compelling reason to think there are walls in the first place. I simply do not see the problem with, say, imagining my response to you, and then typing it here. Just because the idea that is my response started in my head doesn't preclude me from typing it in the absence of some supernatural "tuner" that supposedly gives me access to the idea. The wall you propose just isn't making any sense.

    Second, I have no idea what you're trying to convey with your analogy. Again, it sounds like you're claiming that ideas that originate in the mind cannot be actualized because they originated in the mind.

  23. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,794
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    First, I'm not willing to concede any walls are sound, because I've yet to see a compelling reason to think there are walls in the first place.
    Fair enough, I just don't want to progress to talking about the problems these walls would pose for my beliefs, unless you first concede them to be true and accurate.
    I have no problem with you being unconvinced of that, you just seemed to skip ahead and start talking about implications to premises you are not agreeing with.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I simply do not see the problem with, say, imagining my response to you, and then typing it here.
    The problem is, on naturalism your motor skills are governed by chemistry, not abstract things like ideas which have no force on the physical world.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Just because the idea that is my response started in my head doesn't preclude me from typing it in the absence of some supernatural "tuner" that supposedly gives me access to the idea. The wall you propose just isn't making any sense.
    Well, your sort of assuming it away here. In that I am not saying the idea starts in your mind. Because your "mind" that part of your consciousness that is your experience of brain states, is not itself causative of anything. rather it is caused by brain states, which are caused by necessary chemical reactions.

    Basically, your speaking like a duelest, not a naturalist.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Second, I have no idea what you're trying to convey with your analogy. Again, it sounds like you're claiming that ideas that originate in the mind cannot be actualized because they originated in the mind.
    The analogy, is to illustrate that on naturalism, ideas do not themselves have force, or causal powers. You are not writing your response because you considered an idea. You are writing your response because of how chemicals react.


    ---
    So once again question time.
    Do you think abstract ideas exert force on nature?
    To serve man.

  24. #39
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is, on naturalism your motor skills are governed by chemistry...
    Ok, good so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ...not abstract things like ideas which have no force on the physical world
    ...so what?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are writing your response because of how chemicals react.
    Why is this a problem? You keep saying there's a problem, but why do you say that?

  25. #40
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,257
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, that is a healthy dose of question begging.
    Um... look. Lets say a rock falls on my head, it really hurts and leaves a bruise. I say "I just got hit by a rock."
    You: "How do you know?"
    Me: "It hurt, here is the rock, here is my bruise."
    You: "That's begging the question, you haven't even established the reality of the rock much less your head."
    -This is the point in the story where I feel like bonking you with the rock to demonstrate its reality.

    I'm a pragmatist, that means I think the best knowledge is knowledge you can use. Esoteric questions of hard skepticism aren't of much use to me. I have presuppositions, they include the idea that the world is real, it has rules, cause and effect are real phenomena. I don't bother to try and prove these things because pretty much everyone already accepts them. I will only argue them with people who honestly dispute them.

    No, this is where you are off track. A given brain state is not necissary connection to the idea that it coencides with.
    If I draw a picture of a house, doesn't it have a necessary connection to the house it represents? It may not be exact of course, but there is a necessary connection. Same with your thoughts. They come from interaction with the world you inhabit through your senses and through the very material of your brain. All your thoughts have a cause, and those causes impact the form your thoughts take. Reality draws into your brain and there is absolutely a necissary connection. That does not mean the representations in your mind are 1:1 exact replicas of what they represent.

    So that brain state A could just as easily represent any idea.
    No. The brian is not just a Tabula Rasa. It is a biological machine that has a specific function. It doesn't just opperate in an arbitrary way.

    Brain states are constructed due to the chemical/physical laws at play, not a building of ideas one on another as though the idea had some effect.
    Indeed, and a computer is not built to represent only one idea, but, when in opperation, its representations are not at all arbitrary. It is adaptabble and flexible, but it is not meaningless.

    I don't know where you are going with this.
    Exactly what idea are your responding too? It doesn't appear to be connected to what you quoted.
    It was the same as the above, I am trying to explain to you that our thoughts have causes. They are not arbitrary so much as abstract. A blind man does not have an idea of color in the same way you have an idea of color. That is because our senses are different. Our thoughts flow from our expereince, they are not indipendent of cause and effect. And thus, your critique that naturalism means ideas are arbitrary and meaningless is
    unfounded.

    The idea was simply to point out that there may be no possible physical correlation to some actually possible idea.
    OK, give me an idea that has no possible physical correlation. Just one, any one. I guarantee you I can show you how it has one.

    ---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:43 PM ----------

    I mean, are you guys really saying that A follows from B logically, because those two brain states just so happen to be chronologically linked?
    No, but... logic is based on reality, so are our brain states, so we can often compare the brain states, and then state that reality will work out the same way the mental model did.

    I talked about the model of using beans to count people. The model works because the model is based on the reality it represents. It would not work if I used fruit flies. They could well breed or die and would be no good as a model for counting people. The model, in the case above, brain state, has to be based on reality if it is going to be used to predict reality accurately. If it isn't it won't. If it is, it will.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

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
  •