A question about Jesus.

1…6791112

Comments

  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    The information the brain receives is very important in determining it's course of action. If taken literally the information you are providing suggests laying in a ditch with no hope for anything. Alternatively if my brain receives information to the contrary then it's selected course of action will be on the order of striving for said goals.

    You should look at this as a structure, whereby the causal events underlying brain actions do not remove from the typical psychology of our past, but rather as an enlightening aspect of it. It is still possible to love and feel passion, it is still possible to strive towards goals. The reasons for doing so are just enlightened.

    my point is that you seem to think the philosophy of determinism can only be interpreted one way. i disagree. perhaps for you, it is a sign of hope. for many, it would inspire the kind of listless defeatism i'm describing. likewise, various religion can inspire the kind of compassion and progress you are espousing or it can inspire arrogance and atrocity. i don't see how one is "better" than the other in terms of the results they inspire.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    soulsinging wrote:
    my point is that you seem to think the philosophy of determinism can only be interpreted one way. i disagree. perhaps for you, it is a sign of hope. for many, it would inspire the kind of listless defeatism i'm describing. likewise, various religion can inspire the kind of compassion and progress you are espousing or it can inspire arrogance and atrocity. i don't see how one is "better" than the other in terms of the results they inspire.

    One more accurately describes reality. These same arguments can be asked of Christianity, and you will find much more difficulty in answering them.
    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
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    so we ultimately do have a choice then.

    No
    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
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    No
    who's the one that's typing?
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    We would be much better off with a realistic view of reality. Our current social paradigms are largely the results of christian theology, or the other abrahamic dogmas. They are not at all similar.
    in a way, yes they are. simply put, like ss said, "you're still talking about humans striving for some sort of perfect state, which is no different from a heaven perception"

    it's the same unending desire in nature... found in all religions, or beliefs, including atheism.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    who's the one that's typing?

    By the "one", you assume that there is a homuncular agent, and that is not correct. The only entity that could be ascribed as the "one" is the brain. The brain as an organ is not a simple thing. There is no seat of agency in the brain, it's a diffuse system of interacting parts.

    Even your perception of color is a constant battle with color opponent cells in "combat".

    You are thinking in the wrong terms, far too simple.
    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
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    in a way, yes they are. simply put, like ss said, "you're still talking about humans striving for some sort of perfect state, which is no different from a heaven perception"

    it's the same unending desire in nature... found in all religions, or beliefs, including atheism.

    I'm not expecting to acheive a perfect state. I'm speaking in terms of best predictions, best outcomes, not perfection.
    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
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    By the "one", you assume that there is a homuncular agent, and that is not correct. The only entity that could be ascribed as the "one" is the brain. The brain as an organ is not a simple thing. There is no seat of agency in the brain, it's a diffuse system of interacting parts.

    Even your perception of color is a constant battle with color opponent cells in "combat".

    You are thinking in the wrong terms, far too simple.
    What I'm saying is, if you're brain determines a course of action then isn't that kinda splitting hairs? If my brain determines its course of action it's just another way of saying, "I have determined my course of action."

    So therefore, the "one", is indeed the brain. The brain is part of what makes me what I am. The brain is the one typing. The brain is the one reasoning. The brain is me.

    Or who says, "I want a chocolate ice cream"? Me, or the brain? I think they're one in the same, no?
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I'm not expecting to acheive a perfect state. I'm speaking in terms of best predictions, best outcomes, not perfection.
    it's still the same thing.... sure, go out and talk to every christian, or every religious person... and they'll tell you the same thing you've just said.

    everybody wants to live the best they can.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    I've found you a diagram of the cone-opponent wiring in the color system.

    http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/IM_97/Lecture14/cone_wiring.GIF

    The values 520, 534, 564 are the wavelengths in nanometers corresponding to the different colors Red, Green and Blue respectively.

    The connections that you see to the three opponent cells (Blue-Yellow|Red-Green|Black-White) are marked with either a - or a + discribing either inhibitory (-) or excitatory (+) interactions. Depending on the algorithmic interaction of this framework, a color perception arises somewhere on the Munsell color model.
    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
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    What I'm saying is, if you're brain determines a course of action then isn't that kinda splitting hairs? If my brain determines its course of action it's just another way of saying, "I have determined my course of action."

    So therefore, the "one", is indeed the brain. The brain is part of what makes me what I am. The brain is the one typing. The brain is the one reasoning. The brain is me.

    Or who says, "I want a chocolate ice cream"? Me, or the brain? I think they're one in the same, no?

    The "one" can also be extended to the whole of reality. Because in our causal system we are not causally detached from events in the universe, brains are not independent of thermodynamics or the law of conservation mass-energy.

    There is no "one". The brain does what it does, it does it based largely on the information it receives. You are thinking far too simply about this and I don't think I have the patience to explain everything to you in lay terms.

    Read that book by David Hume http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/trthn10.txt

    Then pick up a copy of Brain-Wise by Pat Churchland.
    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
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    it's still the same thing.... sure, go out and talk to every christian, or every religious person... and they'll tell you the same thing you've just said.

    everybody wants to live the best they can.

    Ok, but what does it have to do with causal attribution.

    Religion has historically encouraged people to attribute cause to some mysterious contra-causal free-will or soul. The results of this dogma have been the deaths of billions of people and the dogma continues on today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    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
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    The "one" can also be extended to the whole of reality. Because in our causal system we are not causally detached from events in the universe, brains are not independent of thermodynamics or the law of conservation mass-energy.

    There is no "one". The brain does what it does, it does it based largely on the information it receives. You are thinking far too simply about this and I don't think I have the patience to explain everything to you in lay terms.

    Read that book by David Hume http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/trthn10.txt

    Then pick up a copy of Brain-Wise by Pat Churchland.
    i'm just asking questions that's all. just using common sense. sure i don't any of what you're saying. it seems to me they're merely concepts... not facts.

    but i'm leaning to agreeing in a way, cause i work at this mental health hospital and everytime i see some messed up patient i wonder how anyone could ever choose to end up the way they are.

    i'm glad this is the last saturday i'll ever be working.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Ok, but what does it have to do with causal attribution.
    nothing i know of.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    i'm just asking questions that's all. just using common sense. sure i don't any of what you're saying. it seems to me they're merely concepts... not facts.

    but i'm leaning to agreeing in a way, cause i work at this mental health hospital and everytime i see some messed up patient i wonder how anyone could ever choose to end up the way they are.

    i'm glad this is the last saturday i'll ever be working.

    Alot of people just ignore the mentally ill.

    It gets pretty nutty when you try to reconcile souls and free-will with phenomena like proposognosia, anosognosia, inattentional blindsight, apraxia, aphasia, pervasive development disorders (Autism, Rett's, etc..), schizophrenia and so on and so on.
    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
  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Alot of people just ignore the mentally ill.

    It gets pretty nutty when you try to reconcile souls and free-will with phenomena like proposognosia, anosognosia, inattentional blindsight, apraxia, aphasia, pervasive development disorders (Autism, Rett's, etc..), schizophrenia and so on and so on.
    i've never argued that certain things such as these things you mention are fated. what i do argue is whether we have a choice or not.

    i mean... like i said earlier... in regards to the brain.... but that doesn't matter since i'm thinking of it simplistically.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    One more accurately describes reality. These same arguments can be asked of Christianity, and you will find much more difficulty in answering them.

    what same arguments?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    The "one" can also be extended to the whole of reality. Because in our causal system we are not causally detached from events in the universe, brains are not independent of thermodynamics or the law of conservation mass-energy.

    There is no "one". The brain does what it does, it does it based largely on the information it receives. You are thinking far too simply about this and I don't think I have the patience to explain everything to you in lay terms.

    Read that book by David Hume http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/trthn10.txt

    Then pick up a copy of Brain-Wise by Pat Churchland.

    but the brain, in all practical respects, creates a uniquely functioning being and entity. so for all practical purposes, your determinism changes nothing. it just offers a different explanation than free will. instead of a soul that can't be predicted determining actions, you have a brain that can't be predicted determining actions. you cannot predict human behavior in either case. so whether you believe in free will or determinism makes absolutely no difference in how you act in the real world.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    deadnothingbetter wrote:
    i've never argued that certain things such as these things you mention are fated. what i do argue is whether we have a choice or not.

    i mean... like i said earlier... in regards to the brain.... but that doesn't matter since i'm thinking of it simplistically.

    It all depends on how you look at it.

    For example:

    If you saw a train approaching a man standing on the tracks. Assuming the man does not move and the train continues on it's course. You would not factor in quantum-indeterminacy as to whether or not the man would be killed by the train. You'd look at the causality of the situation and assume he would in-fact be killed by the train.

    If you look at choice from an introspective perspective, or from a top-level perspective, then most certainly choices do exist. You choose between a coffee or a cappucino, an apple or an orange. Underlying those choices are causes, however. Those causes ultimately determine what you choose. They just aren't normally factored into our observations of choice.

    All determinism proposes for social policy is that we do factor causation into our observations of choice. Similar to when we view OCD patients' compulsive hand-washing, we do not view that as a free-choice, largely because the cause is apparent to us in that moment. So long as we remain aware of causation and seek to identify causes properly, then we can make progress in the social sphere. When we view some choices as caused by antecedents and others as free-choices, we leave the judgement doors open to errors.

    Clarrence Darrow's book Crime its cause and treatment does an excellent job of describing how this paradigm might bennefit society.
    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Ok, but what does it have to do with causal attribution.

    Religion has historically encouraged people to attribute cause to some mysterious contra-causal free-will or soul. The results of this dogma have been the deaths of billions of people and the dogma continues on today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    do you truly think that if the entire world converted to determinism overnight this would cease? instead of killing each other for god, you'd have people killing each other becos they think the other person is uncurably determined to be evil.

Categories