Very interesting, Ahnimus.........made me think of another possibility. What if, meditation or prayer or whatever develops a certain kind of "muscle" that cannot be developed without training. IF there is a variety of mediation or prayer which can open the mind, and IF someone practices EVERY SINGLE DAY, then after some period of time it only makes sense that the serious practitioner will learn things about and realize a level of openness that the casually-interested or uninterested person will not. Could this not account for the 20%? The unpracticed mind simply cannot see like the practiced mind. I don't mean this as a belittling judgment, it's just the reality of practice versus not practicing. Someone who practices at any discipline will obviously be 'better' at it than the unpracticed.
"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." -- Marvin Minsky
I'm not going to agree with the random/accidents thing, but anyway. If you really think about it, there are two things that require a negation of determinism, free-will and God. Both must be causeless, without cause and without determination, to be free from determinism. Perhaps it is only coincidence that neither free-will or God can be sufficiently described or explained, because such an explanation would be deterministic. So when it comes to an argument for free-will and God, one can only say "It exists and that's all there is to it." and that is not evidence to me that it exists.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." -- Marvin Minsky
I'm not going to agree with the random/accidents thing, but anyway. If you really think about it, there are two things that require a negation of determinism, free-will and God. Both must be causeless, without cause and without determination, to be free from determinism. Perhaps it is only coincidence that neither free-will or God can be sufficiently described or explained, because such an explanation would be deterministic. So when it comes to an argument for free-will and God, one can only say "It exists and that's all there is to it." and that is not evidence to me that it exists.
So, referring to an earlier reply to me on this thread, I'm wondering, how do you find Creativity/Ideas to fall in line with defeatist thinking?
So, referring to an earlier reply to me on this thread, I'm wondering, how do you find Creativity/Ideas to fall in line with defeatist thinking?
What do you mean defeatist thinking?
I hear people talk about creativity and how wonderous it is. Ok, but try something out, be creative and come up with a new colour, one that can't be made by some combination of red, green and blue. You may think you have a colour like 'yellow' that isn't made of those three colours, but in-fact it is pure red and green makes yellow. You can't use creativity to think of a colour that doesn't already consist of colours that you know. Any colour you do think of probably already has a name. So what exactly is creativity but an inductive realization of what we already know?
But anyway, I don't see how creativity/ideas are evidence of anything pertaining to the topic. My argument comes down to these simple arguments that free-will is a circular logic and cannot be sufficiently explained or described without defying comprehension, just like God. And the other question of variation of free-will and how that arises or if it doesn't, then what difference does free-will actually make from person to person.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Those were your words, but I think I may have misinterpreted your post. You misinterpreted mine as well. I wasn't speaking of Crick. I was speaking of the guy who came up with a way to map the human genome, whoever that was. I read an interview with him in 1992 or so, and that's the last I've heard of him.
I hear people talk about creativity and how wonderous it is. Ok, but try something out, be creative and come up with a new colour, one that can't be made by some combination of red, green and blue. You may think you have a colour like 'yellow' that isn't made of those three colours, but in-fact it is pure red and green makes yellow. You can't use creativity to think of a colour that doesn't already consist of colours that you know. Any colour you do think of probably already has a name. So what exactly is creativity but an inductive realization of what we already know?
But anyway, I don't see how creativity/ideas are evidence of anything pertaining to the topic. My argument comes down to these simple arguments that free-will is a circular logic and cannot be sufficiently explained or described without defying comprehension, just like God. And the other question of variation of free-will and how that arises or if it doesn't, then what difference does free-will actually make from person to person.
But, there are new ideas, the example here coming from the genome mapping guy. And sometimes they come out of nowhere to the person who comes up with them. Sure, it's in the brain, but so what, it's still a creative new way of looking at things.
Btw, "God" does not defy comprehension. If that were so, how did you just use it in a sentence?
Those were your words, but I think I may have misinterpreted your post. You misinterpreted mine as well. I wasn't speaking of Crick. I was speaking of the guy who came up with a way to map the human genome, whoever that was. I read an interview with him in 1992 or so, and that's the last I've heard of him.
But, there are new ideas, the example here coming from the genome mapping guy. And sometimes they come out of nowhere to the person who comes up with them. Sure, it's in the brain, but so what, it's still a creative new way of looking at things.
Btw, "God" does not defy comprehension. If that were so, how did you just use it in a sentence?
God defies causality which defies comprehension.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
God is a philosophical viewpoint, and a viewpoint motivates people to behave, so in the form of a concept God does exist. Just as science is a 'philosophical' viewpoint and science as an objective thing does not exist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
God is a philosophical viewpoint, and a viewpoint motivates people to behave, so in the form of a concept God does exist. Just as science is a 'philosophical' viewpoint and science as an objective thing does not exist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." -- Marvin Minsky
I'm not going to agree with the random/accidents thing, but anyway. If you really think about it, there are two things that require a negation of determinism, free-will and God. Both must be causeless, without cause and without determination, to be free from determinism. Perhaps it is only coincidence that neither free-will or God can be sufficiently described or explained, because such an explanation would be deterministic. So when it comes to an argument for free-will and God, one can only say "It exists and that's all there is to it." and that is not evidence to me that it exists.
What makes you so certain that there are no purely random events in the universe? My limited understanding of quantum physics suggests to me that true randomness could exist. At the very least if it doesn't exist in literal terms, it does in practical terms, because it is impossible for us to predict certain behaviours of sub atomic particles (Heisenberg's uncertaintity principle etc).
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I agree that falsifiability is important. And in-fact I do probe the research methods used when I investigate claims. I do this based on an understanding I got from a science textbook which explained the need for skepticism. So, it's not that I have blind faith in every headline I read, but I probe them deeper and determine for myself if it's credible. This usually requires a peer review of some sort.
Alright then. We are on the same page more or less.
Why would I focus on the 80% reporting religious experiences, the 20% are just important. I can't see it being a natural thing, granted by the Judeo-Christian God because it wouldn't make any moral sense for God to only grant it to 80% of people.
Is the only alternative to atheism the christian god and christianity? Your argument rests on that premise. I reject christianity and the christian god, and yet I think there is something, which 80% experience.
But I mean, my interpretation of it is based on a secular humanist/hard determinist viewpoint. I know I can't convince you that you are not free, so it would be difficult to see how I draw the conclusion that these are merely hallucinations.
It also seems like you assume me to be a total free-will supporting religious person. Stop assuming that. I am just not as convinced of determinism as you seem to be, although I acknowledge many of the points you and others make in favour of determinism. And I do believe there to be something that makes all people throughout history to be religious, and have the aforementioned 80% claim such an experience. I know very well how you can conclude that they are all hallucinations, as that would be the only resort of reductionist science. But I dont think you can conclude as adamantly as you do. To me it looks mostly like an excuse better than "we dont know exactly", and resulting from assuming that what we know now is all there is to know about the subject. There are a lot of uncertainty about how things work, particularly consciousness and quantum physics.
And my view is based on secular humanist/soft determinism, if you wondered.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
What makes you so certain that there are no purely random events in the universe? My limited understanding of quantum physics suggests to me that true randomness could exist. At the very least if it doesn't exist in literal terms, it does in practical terms, because it is impossible for us to predict certain behaviours of sub atomic particles (Heisenberg's uncertaintity principle etc).
It follows that if I flip a coin the outcome is only a probability, but the outcome is thus determined by flipping the coin. If will is based on quantum indeterminacy, then I would suggest that will is like the face on the coin. The face of the coin can't freely decide what the flip does. Hence it falls into determinism.
But what you said about quantum physics is liken to what any quantum physicist would say "my limited understanding" "true randomness could exist". There is little certainty to it, it's a highly controversial thing. I would suggest that it's not truly random, true indeterminacy appears to be impossible in any mathematical sense. What about quantum inertia? QM is far too abstract to make conclusions about. So why make the leap? Why not presume that it behaves like everything else?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
And I do believe there to be something that makes all people throughout history to be religious, and have the aforementioned 80% claim such an experience.
I read once (on a christian website) that all people are born with a 'God shaped hole' that only god can fill, ie that nobody can ever feel fulfilled until they accept God into their lives.
I completely disagree with this of course, but as a biologist I often find myself looking at things from an evolutionary perspective, and it got me wondering - Perhaps there is an innate psychological tendancy in humans that has evolved as a byproduct of our brain development to look for meaning in things that don't neccessarily have any meaning. Maybe humans in general are predisposed to having 'spiritual' experiences because of the way our brains are wired. The evolutionary development of our brains is no doubt a product of the social structure of our species as much as it of the selective pressures that the environment subjected us to. One of the major keys to the success of our species is our ability to work together, so a tendancy to have an inbuilt religious capacity probably served to improve solidarity within human populations in the past, and therefore improved their chances of survial.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I read once (on a christian website) that all people are born with a 'God shaped hole' that only god can fill, ie that nobody can ever feel fulfilled until they accept God into their lives.
I completely disagree with this of course, but as a biologist I often find myself looking at things from an evolutionary perspective, and it got me wondering - Perhaps there is an innate psychological tendancy in humans that has evolved as a byproduct of our brain development to look for meaning in things that don't neccessarily have any meaning. Maybe humans in general are predisposed to having 'spiritual' experiences because of the way our brains are wired. The evolutionary development of our brains is no doubt a product of the social structure of our species as much as it of the selective pressures that the environment subjected us to. One of the major keys to the success of our species is our ability to work together, so a tendancy to have an inbuilt religious capacity probably served to improve solidarity within human populations in the past, and therefore improved their chances of survial.
Maybe maybe. The reasons why we have the capacity is open for speculation. It seems pretty certain that we do have it, though. And I must admit I am often not too fond of evolutional explanations, as I feel it is a bit overused to explain everything. In this case to some extent, evolution could play a part, sure.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
Nice post.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Everything
"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only on these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." -- Marvin Minsky
I'm not going to agree with the random/accidents thing, but anyway. If you really think about it, there are two things that require a negation of determinism, free-will and God. Both must be causeless, without cause and without determination, to be free from determinism. Perhaps it is only coincidence that neither free-will or God can be sufficiently described or explained, because such an explanation would be deterministic. So when it comes to an argument for free-will and God, one can only say "It exists and that's all there is to it." and that is not evidence to me that it exists.
So, referring to an earlier reply to me on this thread, I'm wondering, how do you find Creativity/Ideas to fall in line with defeatist thinking?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What do you mean defeatist thinking?
I hear people talk about creativity and how wonderous it is. Ok, but try something out, be creative and come up with a new colour, one that can't be made by some combination of red, green and blue. You may think you have a colour like 'yellow' that isn't made of those three colours, but in-fact it is pure red and green makes yellow. You can't use creativity to think of a colour that doesn't already consist of colours that you know. Any colour you do think of probably already has a name. So what exactly is creativity but an inductive realization of what we already know?
But anyway, I don't see how creativity/ideas are evidence of anything pertaining to the topic. My argument comes down to these simple arguments that free-will is a circular logic and cannot be sufficiently explained or described without defying comprehension, just like God. And the other question of variation of free-will and how that arises or if it doesn't, then what difference does free-will actually make from person to person.
But, there are new ideas, the example here coming from the genome mapping guy. And sometimes they come out of nowhere to the person who comes up with them. Sure, it's in the brain, but so what, it's still a creative new way of looking at things.
Btw, "God" does not defy comprehension. If that were so, how did you just use it in a sentence?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
God defies causality which defies comprehension.
How can God defy anything if he doesn't exist?
or
How can God defy anything if God is non-existent?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
God is a philosophical viewpoint, and a viewpoint motivates people to behave, so in the form of a concept God does exist. Just as science is a 'philosophical' viewpoint and science as an objective thing does not exist.
Nice post, Bill Nye.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
But science isn't incomprehensible
Gotcha.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What makes you so certain that there are no purely random events in the universe? My limited understanding of quantum physics suggests to me that true randomness could exist. At the very least if it doesn't exist in literal terms, it does in practical terms, because it is impossible for us to predict certain behaviours of sub atomic particles (Heisenberg's uncertaintity principle etc).
-C Addison
Is the only alternative to atheism the christian god and christianity? Your argument rests on that premise. I reject christianity and the christian god, and yet I think there is something, which 80% experience.
It also seems like you assume me to be a total free-will supporting religious person. Stop assuming that. I am just not as convinced of determinism as you seem to be, although I acknowledge many of the points you and others make in favour of determinism. And I do believe there to be something that makes all people throughout history to be religious, and have the aforementioned 80% claim such an experience. I know very well how you can conclude that they are all hallucinations, as that would be the only resort of reductionist science. But I dont think you can conclude as adamantly as you do. To me it looks mostly like an excuse better than "we dont know exactly", and resulting from assuming that what we know now is all there is to know about the subject. There are a lot of uncertainty about how things work, particularly consciousness and quantum physics.
And my view is based on secular humanist/soft determinism, if you wondered.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It follows that if I flip a coin the outcome is only a probability, but the outcome is thus determined by flipping the coin. If will is based on quantum indeterminacy, then I would suggest that will is like the face on the coin. The face of the coin can't freely decide what the flip does. Hence it falls into determinism.
But what you said about quantum physics is liken to what any quantum physicist would say "my limited understanding" "true randomness could exist". There is little certainty to it, it's a highly controversial thing. I would suggest that it's not truly random, true indeterminacy appears to be impossible in any mathematical sense. What about quantum inertia? QM is far too abstract to make conclusions about. So why make the leap? Why not presume that it behaves like everything else?
I read once (on a christian website) that all people are born with a 'God shaped hole' that only god can fill, ie that nobody can ever feel fulfilled until they accept God into their lives.
I completely disagree with this of course, but as a biologist I often find myself looking at things from an evolutionary perspective, and it got me wondering - Perhaps there is an innate psychological tendancy in humans that has evolved as a byproduct of our brain development to look for meaning in things that don't neccessarily have any meaning. Maybe humans in general are predisposed to having 'spiritual' experiences because of the way our brains are wired. The evolutionary development of our brains is no doubt a product of the social structure of our species as much as it of the selective pressures that the environment subjected us to. One of the major keys to the success of our species is our ability to work together, so a tendancy to have an inbuilt religious capacity probably served to improve solidarity within human populations in the past, and therefore improved their chances of survial.
-C Addison
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965