I'll ignore the presupposition of God for this argument. I will say that the church will generally consider love to be good and lust to be bad. But how can we distinguish the two and separate them into eternal and temporal. Most people would admit that lust is an innate drive as well as love. Augustine is suggesting that we are innately aligned with God's will and it takes free-will to 'deprive it of right order'. Thus God is not the source of Evil and individual people are responsible for themselves. However, I do not see lust as a straying of natural order, it's part of natural order. It is different than romantic love and/or attachment, but it facilitates them. It is a primary drive that we are born into and develop during puberty. Augustine is proposing a 'Innate purity' perspective on human nature. However, with simply lust and love as examples and using the Christian dogma as a map, we see that is simply not true.
As others have pointed out, it is futile to debate Augustine's philosophy without accepting the premise of a god. If you dont, you dont agree with the premises, and hence, none of the arguments Augustine uses will make any sense.
But to play the devil's advocate here, lust is a thing of the physical (sinful) body, while love is of the soul, reflecting God who is love. Love is God and God is love. (Note: Love is then meant as way beyond "romantic love") If we align ourselves to God (as he intended) then we will align to love and good (spiritual, moral). But we have free will, so we may choose not to, and in essence align ourselves with evil (physical, materialism).
But without accepting body/soul duality and the existence of god, there really is no point in debating Augustine. I don't accept his premises either, which makes it unnecessary for me to debate it further.
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
As others have pointed out, it is futile to debate Augustine's philosophy without accepting the premise of a god. If you dont, you dont agree with the premises, and hence, none of the arguments Augustine uses will make any sense.
But to play the devil's advocate here, lust is a thing of the physical (sinful) body, while love is of the soul, reflecting God who is love. Love is God and God is love. (Note: Love is then meant as way beyond "romantic love") If we align ourselves to God (as he intended) then we will align to love and good (spiritual, moral). But we have free will, so we may choose not to, and in essence align ourselves with evil (physical, materialism).
But without accepting body/soul duality and the existence of god, there really is no point in debating Augustine. I don't accept his premises either, which makes it unnecessary for me to debate it further.
Peace
Dan
Who really accepts substance duality these days? You'd have to be crazy. Interestingly according to Augustine I'm a lot of bad things, foolish, stupid, etc.. If you want to see the epitome of ignorant arrogance I suggest this book.
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
Quite a lot of people I would suppose. What about the wave/particle characteristic of atoms?
You'd have to be crazy.
No you wouldn't. It would be counter to your beliefs, somewhat mine, and probably the scientific community's official stance, but it wouldn't be crazy.
Interestingly according to Augustine I'm a lot of bad things, foolish, stupid, etc.. If you want to see the epitome of ignorant arrogance I suggest this book.
Well, I dont particularly care for his philosophy either. And I think I'll give it a miss.
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
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
Not before looking up on wikipedia about him now, no. I fail to see his relevance in this matter though.
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
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
Well, our will is quite open for suggestions at least.
Skimmed through them, and interesting. But what was the relevance to what we discussed above?
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
Well, our will is quite open for suggestions at least.
Skimmed through them, and interesting. But what was the relevance to what we discussed above?
Peace
Dan
Look, if someone can make you want something you didn't want before and eliminate any want for the thing you originally wanted, simply by using a technique of sub-conscious suggestion. Then I don't see how a person can have free-will. It follows that all of our initial wants and desires are also the products of sub-conscious suggestion. There is truely no other explanations for the diversity of thoughts and desires, as well as the irrationality of some, other than that all these things emerge from the subconcious, in which case, I see not power of will over it.
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
Look, if someone can make you want something you didn't want before and eliminate any want for the thing you originally wanted, simply by using a technique of sub-conscious suggestion. Then I don't see how a person can have free-will. It follows that all of our initial wants and desires are also the products of sub-conscious suggestion. There is truely no other explanations for the diversity of thoughts and desires, as well as the irrationality of some, other than that all these things emerge from the subconcious, in which case, I see not power of will over it.
Oh are we on about free will now? I have voiced no opinion of it in this thread as far as I know. That's why I asked for relevance.
But that our will can be changed, does not imply that we don't have it at all. And that something is going on subconsciously does not negate any will either.
But I'm no proponent of total free-will either. I just dont think that what you point out here necessarily are conclusive evidence to support your case.
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
I bought these Centrios ear-buds because my other headphones are busted.
When I watch videos or listen to sounds that have a certain range of background noise, I see strange anomolies in the environment around me, and a presence as if something is there, it first seems like a bug is flying around, but as I look around me there is nothing there. I've linked this phenomena to the new ear-buds I'm using, I also tend to submit to an alternate state of consciousness, a slightly hypnotic state, if you will. I believe this is caused by the electromagnetism from the ear-buds, unfortunately I've no way of verifying this without an EM detector.
The ear-buds us NdFeB magnets (according to the package, which I still have). These magnets are very powerful and are used for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. In theory, I've discovered the source of these recent 'presences' to be the ear-buds I just purchased.
But this is what I mean about knowledge and critical analysis. Instead of assuming that I'm being haunted or foreshadowed by God. All kinds of things affect us, and it follows that we are then a product of these influences.
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
I bought these Centrios ear-buds because my other headphones are busted.
When I watch videos or listen to sounds that have a certain range of background noise, I see strange anomolies in the environment around me, and a presence as if something is there, it first seems like a bug is flying around, but as I look around me there is nothing there. I've linked this phenomena to the new ear-buds I'm using, I also tend to submit to an alternate state of consciousness, a slightly hypnotic state, if you will. I believe this is caused by the electromagnetism from the ear-buds, unfortunately I've no way of verifying this without an EM detector.
The ear-buds us NdFeB magnets (according to the package, which I still have). These magnets are very powerful and are used for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. In theory, I've discovered the source of these recent 'presences' to be the ear-buds I just purchased.
But this is what I mean about knowledge and critical analysis. Instead of assuming that I'm being haunted or foreshadowed by God. All kinds of things affect us, and it follows that we are then a product of these influences.
Weird stuff about the headphones.
But what follows is not that we are the product of only our influences. It follows that influences influence us. How much it does, well that's debatable. I'd be willing to concede that a lot is dependent on our influences. I'm not as prepared to accept that we are only our influences.
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
But what follows is not that we are the product of only our influences. It follows that influences influence us. How much it does, well that's debatable. I'd be willing to concede that a lot is dependent on our influences. I'm not as prepared to accept that we are only our influences.
Peace
Dan
Do you have a better explanation? Or any alternative explanation?
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
Do you have a better explanation? Or any alternative explanation?
Not really, other than I believe we have some ability to exert will, even if we in many if not most cases don't use it, and go along with the flow.
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
Not really, other than I believe we have some ability to exert will, even if we in many if not most cases don't use it, and go along with the flow.
Peace
Dan
And where does this belief come from?
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
I dunno. I am just not convinced that there are no actions, just reactions. Why are you so convinced of you hard determinism stance?
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
I dunno. I am just not convinced that there are no actions, just reactions. Why are you so convinced of you hard determinism stance?
Peace
Dan
There is no evidence to the contrary and everything is evidence for determinism.
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
There is no evidence to the contrary and everything is evidence for determinism.
Arguably, if one interpret them exactly your way. I see evidence for influences on our actions, yes. I see no hard determinism, making evrything we do mere reactions (which begs the question about initial action, leading to god, which you dont like), from what you have presented here alone. We are easily fooled, certainly. Are we suggestible? Most definitely. (and this should actually necessitate having a long critical look on our science as well)
Is evrything we do pre-determined and decided from now and to eternity? I dont think we are, and I base that mostly on gut-feeling, everyday experience of exerting will (might be illusional, certainly), and no conclusive evidence on the subject. Not without one particular perspective from the outset anyway.
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
Arguably, if one interpret them exactly your way. I see evidence for influences on our actions, yes. I see no hard determinism, making evrything we do mere reactions (which begs the question about initial action, leading to god, which you dont like), from what you have presented here alone. We are easily fooled, certainly. Are we suggestible? Most definitely. (and this should actually necessitate having a long critical look on our science as well)
Is evrything we do pre-determined and decided from now and to eternity? I dont think we are, and I base that mostly on gut-feeling, everyday experience of exerting will (might be illusional, certainly), and no conclusive evidence on the subject. Not without one particular perspective from the outset anyway.
Peace
Dan
Causality does not lead to God that's a fallacy of Creationism. It suggests that the chain of causality ends with a causeless force. But that is a presupposition, presupposing the chain continues for infinity is another fallacy. However, we do not exist at the begining of time, we exist somewhere within causality, that much is apparent. Speculating about the 'begining' is not a good argument either way, IMO.
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
Causality does not lead to God that's a fallacy of Creationism. It suggests that the chain of causality ends with a causeless force. But that is a presupposition, presupposing the chain continues for infinity is another fallacy. However, we do not exist at the begining of time, we exist somewhere within causality, that much is apparent. Speculating about the 'begining' is not a good argument either way, IMO.
Probably not, but it does leave the door wide open for god or something of the kind at the start. Something you're usually loathe to do. Every theory on how the universe is, requires presuppositions.
Presupposing neverending (or just really long ones) closed causality chains does indeed stimulate speculation as to what the initial action we are still reacting to was. Like it or not. And it is an observation, not necessarily a counter-argument in this.
But I dont view the evidence as supporting hard determinism necessarily. Soft determinism, perhaps.
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
Probably not, but it does leave the door wide open for god or something of the kind at the start. Something you're usually loathe to do. Every theory on how the universe is, requires presuppositions.
Presupposing neverending (or just really long ones) closed causality chains does indeed stimulate speculation as to what the initial action we are still reacting to was. Like it or not. And it is an observation, not necessarily a counter-argument in this.
But I dont view the evidence as supporting hard determinism necessarily. Soft determinism, perhaps.
Peace
Dan
What is the evidence for dualism? How can A determine what A is?
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
What is the evidence for dualism? How can A determine what A is?
Dualism? Where have I claimed to have evidence for, or even argumented for dualism in this thread, or elsewhere for that matter? Are you attributing me as your opposite again?
My point with the god thing was drawing the conclusion of what you said. I am not arguing god, certainly not the christian, nor will I ever speak up for dualism in the traditional sense.
And I thought we were on about determinism now. Of what consequence is dualism to that debate?
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
Dualism? Where have I claimed to have evidence for, or even argumented for dualism in this thread, or elsewhere for that matter? Are you attributing me as your opposite again?
My point with the god thing was drawing the conclusion of what you said. I am not arguing god, certainly not the christian, nor will I ever speak up for dualism in the traditional sense.
And I thought we were on about determinism now. Of what consequence is dualism to that debate?
Peace
Dan
Dualism is the belief in a determinst universe but also the existence of free-will, or what you called soft-determinism.
It's very important.
Ok, I'm not trying to prove God does not exist, or that he does exist. I'm saying in the absence of either belief, there is still no God. Rationally speaking, the best hypothesis is that their is neither God nor Free-will.
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
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
Dualism is the belief in a determinst universe but also the existence of free-will, or what you called soft-determinism.
It's very important.
OK, I misunderstood the term dualism. I interpreted it as soul/body exclusively. Upon reading up on it, I might just be claiming some kind of dualism, or I at least see how soft determinism can be considered dualistic.
I don't have anything you would consider evidence to support my gut feeling and intuitive understanding of how things work. But, to apply your reasoning below, since I dont see anything conclusive about neither free-will or hard determinism, it is reasonable to think that none of them exist, or that reality is somewhere in between.
I dont so much have hard contrary evidence, as I am merely unconvinced based on the evidence you have put forward so far.
Ok, I'm not trying to prove God does not exist, or that he does exist. I'm saying in the absence of either belief, there is still no God. Rationally speaking, the best hypothesis is that their is neither God nor Free-will.
The rational hypothesis would then be to have no opinion on God, and no opinion on free-will/determinism as it cannot be proven either way anyway. That's if you need hard evidence to make your hypothesis.
Lot of big wigs claim determinism. Particularly scientists who are by definition looking for laws, and hence will not find anything but laws. Be that as it may, I have not denied the powerful impact of influences in this. I just don't as easily accept that our influences are all that we are. And it's damn hard to prove either way. But there is support for claiming that free will is not as free as we might think it is. But that doesn't automatically mean hard determinism either.
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
Perhaps that is sufficient evidence, somehow I doubt it though.
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
Perhaps that is sufficient evidence, somehow I doubt it though.
If you say so it must be true....
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
Care to give an argument for free-will, I haven't heard a reasonable one yet.
Why should I have to prove something doesn't exist, that has never been proven to exist to begin with?
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
Perhaps that is sufficient evidence, somehow I doubt it though.
care to share that formula? (And not "very intelligent people think that randomness isn't true but can't prove it right now, but really it's the truth".)
And you shouldn't have to prove something doesn't exist. Science can only explain existing stuff, proving unexistence is not really important. Proving a fact or explaining nature is.
Care to give an argument for free-will, I haven't heard a reasonable one yet.
Why should I have to prove something doesn't exist, that has never been proven to exist to begin with?
Well that's the point, isn't it? You haven't proven anything either. What you have is a more certain position and belief on the subject than I have. You talk about the existence of proof and evidence, but never present them. Like the last one "it is mathematically impossible" for anything other than hard determinism, without anything backing it up. Why is the burden of proof on me? You are the adamant and certain one in this, while I am not persuaded on any direction and opting for a middle ground. So far you have presented things you feel support your case, whereas I am not convinced by the radical and debatable conclusion you draw from them.
And I won't give an argument for free-will as I am not a supporter of pure free-will. I am just unconvinced by your radical hard determinism stance. And I am no supporter of hard determinism either. Being a soft determinist is not the same as being free-will. I agree with much of what you say, accept many of the sources and arguments, but do not draw the conclusions you do.
Feel free to present me with your undenibale proof, preferably in writing as I dont really have time to watch videos these days. If you can present me with just that, undeniable proof, I might take your side after all. But frankly, I dont believe there exists authoritative undenibale proof on the subject. There are some evidence or results pointing in that general direction, and scientists may have a favorite theory on it, but I doubt there are evidence that cannot be interpreted in a different way. Prove me wrong.
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
But to play the devil's advocate here, lust is a thing of the physical (sinful) body, while love is of the soul, reflecting God who is love. Love is God and God is love. (Note: Love is then meant as way beyond "romantic love") If we align ourselves to God (as he intended) then we will align to love and good (spiritual, moral). But we have free will, so we may choose not to, and in essence align ourselves with evil (physical, materialism).
But without accepting body/soul duality and the existence of god, there really is no point in debating Augustine. I don't accept his premises either, which makes it unnecessary for me to debate it further.
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
Who really accepts substance duality these days? You'd have to be crazy. Interestingly according to Augustine I'm a lot of bad things, foolish, stupid, etc.. If you want to see the epitome of ignorant arrogance I suggest this book.
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
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
If you watch his videos, and read up on Hypnotic suggestions and NLP, it starts to appear that our will is quite superficial.
Here are a few examples
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hwthqRJ1Khg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bkleuxpvxY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMg
This one is especially good. Brown is an atheist, but he poses as an evangelist and converts people to Christianity. (2 parts).
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq-YUdq1OI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-DylNVUN_3I
Skimmed through them, and interesting. But what was the relevance to what we discussed above?
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
Look, if someone can make you want something you didn't want before and eliminate any want for the thing you originally wanted, simply by using a technique of sub-conscious suggestion. Then I don't see how a person can have free-will. It follows that all of our initial wants and desires are also the products of sub-conscious suggestion. There is truely no other explanations for the diversity of thoughts and desires, as well as the irrationality of some, other than that all these things emerge from the subconcious, in which case, I see not power of will over it.
But that our will can be changed, does not imply that we don't have it at all. And that something is going on subconsciously does not negate any will either.
But I'm no proponent of total free-will either. I just dont think that what you point out here necessarily are conclusive evidence to support your case.
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
When I watch videos or listen to sounds that have a certain range of background noise, I see strange anomolies in the environment around me, and a presence as if something is there, it first seems like a bug is flying around, but as I look around me there is nothing there. I've linked this phenomena to the new ear-buds I'm using, I also tend to submit to an alternate state of consciousness, a slightly hypnotic state, if you will. I believe this is caused by the electromagnetism from the ear-buds, unfortunately I've no way of verifying this without an EM detector.
The ear-buds us NdFeB magnets (according to the package, which I still have). These magnets are very powerful and are used for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. In theory, I've discovered the source of these recent 'presences' to be the ear-buds I just purchased.
But this is what I mean about knowledge and critical analysis. Instead of assuming that I'm being haunted or foreshadowed by God. All kinds of things affect us, and it follows that we are then a product of these influences.
But what follows is not that we are the product of only our influences. It follows that influences influence us. How much it does, well that's debatable. I'd be willing to concede that a lot is dependent on our influences. I'm not as prepared to accept that we are only our influences.
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
Do you have a better explanation? Or any alternative explanation?
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
And where does this belief come from?
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
There is no evidence to the contrary and everything is evidence for determinism.
Is evrything we do pre-determined and decided from now and to eternity? I dont think we are, and I base that mostly on gut-feeling, everyday experience of exerting will (might be illusional, certainly), and no conclusive evidence on the subject. Not without one particular perspective from the outset anyway.
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
Causality does not lead to God that's a fallacy of Creationism. It suggests that the chain of causality ends with a causeless force. But that is a presupposition, presupposing the chain continues for infinity is another fallacy. However, we do not exist at the begining of time, we exist somewhere within causality, that much is apparent. Speculating about the 'begining' is not a good argument either way, IMO.
Presupposing neverending (or just really long ones) closed causality chains does indeed stimulate speculation as to what the initial action we are still reacting to was. Like it or not. And it is an observation, not necessarily a counter-argument in this.
But I dont view the evidence as supporting hard determinism necessarily. Soft determinism, perhaps.
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
What is the evidence for dualism? How can A determine what A is?
My point with the god thing was drawing the conclusion of what you said. I am not arguing god, certainly not the christian, nor will I ever speak up for dualism in the traditional sense.
And I thought we were on about determinism now. Of what consequence is dualism to that debate?
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
Dualism is the belief in a determinst universe but also the existence of free-will, or what you called soft-determinism.
It's very important.
Ok, I'm not trying to prove God does not exist, or that he does exist. I'm saying in the absence of either belief, there is still no God. Rationally speaking, the best hypothesis is that their is neither God nor Free-will.
I don't have anything you would consider evidence to support my gut feeling and intuitive understanding of how things work. But, to apply your reasoning below, since I dont see anything conclusive about neither free-will or hard determinism, it is reasonable to think that none of them exist, or that reality is somewhere in between.
I dont so much have hard contrary evidence, as I am merely unconvinced based on the evidence you have put forward so far.
The rational hypothesis would then be to have no opinion on God, and no opinion on free-will/determinism as it cannot be proven either way anyway. That's if you need hard evidence to make your hypothesis.
Lot of big wigs claim determinism. Particularly scientists who are by definition looking for laws, and hence will not find anything but laws. Be that as it may, I have not denied the powerful impact of influences in this. I just don't as easily accept that our influences are all that we are. And it's damn hard to prove either way. But there is support for claiming that free will is not as free as we might think it is. But that doesn't automatically mean hard determinism either.
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
Perhaps that is sufficient evidence, somehow I doubt it though.
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
Care to give an argument for free-will, I haven't heard a reasonable one yet.
Why should I have to prove something doesn't exist, that has never been proven to exist to begin with?
care to share that formula? (And not "very intelligent people think that randomness isn't true but can't prove it right now, but really it's the truth".)
And you shouldn't have to prove something doesn't exist. Science can only explain existing stuff, proving unexistence is not really important. Proving a fact or explaining nature is.
And I won't give an argument for free-will as I am not a supporter of pure free-will. I am just unconvinced by your radical hard determinism stance. And I am no supporter of hard determinism either. Being a soft determinist is not the same as being free-will. I agree with much of what you say, accept many of the sources and arguments, but do not draw the conclusions you do.
Feel free to present me with your undenibale proof, preferably in writing as I dont really have time to watch videos these days. If you can present me with just that, undeniable proof, I might take your side after all. But frankly, I dont believe there exists authoritative undenibale proof on the subject. There are some evidence or results pointing in that general direction, and scientists may have a favorite theory on it, but I doubt there are evidence that cannot be interpreted in a different way. Prove me wrong.
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
i agree. how can there be a reaction without an initial action to react to?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say