Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify.
    #15879896 - 02/29/12 06:13 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

This came up in another thread on free will yesterday I felt a need to start a discussion on the clarification of these terms.

In the thread a fellow member, who I shall refer to as 'he,' stated that a materialist/ atheist worldview excludes the belief in; mind, will, demons, spirits, etc.

First up, atheism only pertains to ones lack of belief in any god or gods. So an atheist may in fact believe in life after death, reincarnation, spirits, fairies, whatever...

Atheism does not imply materialism and vice versa. The user seemed to use the two words interchangebly as if they represent the same specific set of beliefs. An atheist can be a dualist, monist, whatever.

Likewise, a materialist can be a theist, believe in mind, spirit, fairies, whatever, although their belief would state that these things are not part of some 'non-physical' world, but are just as much a part of material reality as everything else, and as such can be explained in those terms.

Of course, their belief would still be unfounded and based purely on faith, but that is beside the point.

He also seemed to believe material only refers to hard bits of matter. Though material actually refers to anything that exists in the physical universe. This includes energy, atoms, light, mind, consciousness, thoughts, Metallica, Toblerone... you name it.


Anyway, the belief that there can be a 'non-physical' world seems to be completely nonsensical. Lets say there are spirits, they somehow have some relation to the physical world, but remain isolated in the non-physical world.... how does that even work? Lets say they exist in some alternate dimension, which somehow has links to this our world, doesnt that make them just a part of this world? Just because we cannot see or interact with something directly does not mean it is non physical, it just means we don't have the understanding to fit those things into our view of the world... yet.

But then, I guess the reason we havent been able to do that is due to the complete lack of evidence for these claims. If the evidence ever comes to light, at that point we will be able to fit 'spirits' into our physical view of the universe.



Note: I am not saying I believe in spirits, just using that as an example of how supposedly 'non-physical' entities, given the discovery of sufficient evidence, would in actual fact just be deemed another part of the physical universe.

Shalom.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15879903 - 02/29/12 06:17 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

I'm a Philatelist.:ass:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Icelander]
    #15879912 - 02/29/12 06:22 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Philately will get you nowhere.

No, pun intended.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Edited by Desert Elf (02/29/12 06:22 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15879924 - 02/29/12 06:27 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

no pun taken


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Icelander]
    #15880082 - 02/29/12 07:41 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Just to clarify how I use those terms (I use them in their textbook forms, but admittedly there isn't universal agreement on them, just general usage)...

Atheism -- I'm sure we all agree on this one. Lack of a belief in a deity, or the affirmative belief that there is no deity.

Materialism -- belief that all existence is characterized as material, composed of matter/physical energy. (I only say physical energy to rule out the belief in "supernatural energies" adhered to by certain theists)

I admit that atheism doesn't strictly require a materialist view, and I try not to use them  interchangeably... but as a general rule, I think we can agree most atheists are materialist. This is because, ime, atheists generally cite no scientific(physical) evidence as the primary reason for not believing in any god. So in these cases, a person's materialism leads to their being atheist, no the other way around. This reasoning would also preclude the existence of all other non-physical entities -- spirits, demons, souls, etc... The exceptions would be atheists who believe in something like a soul, for instance, or perhaps worship non-supernatural physical beings for other reasons.

BUT, based on every definition I've ever heard, I disagree that a materialist can be a theist or believe in spirits. Based on virtually every definition (again maybe not all, but the vast majority)... one of the defining characteristics of a deity is that it's a supernatural being. Maybe someone does worship a physical object. But in order for it to be a deity (as opposed to just some physical object they happen to worship), by definition it is supernatural, which wouldn't fit the materialist worldview. There's really no need to use these words outside of general usage because someone, somewhere happens to hold an alternate view. They are by a wide margin the exception, not the rule.

Again, the belief in a pure physical spirit doesn't conform the definition of spirit. Spirits are defined as non-corporeal beings, so someone who says they believe in physical spirits are talking about something else.

And just to touch on the "mind" right quick... I'm not opposed to using the term "mind" to refer to the purely physical brain activity. But I do think it's very pure usage and sloppy language... but that's just me. Like we talked about, historically, the mind referred to non-physical substance -- this sort of "spiritual" side of the physical brain. But this wasn't just an ancient Greek thing. Even in modern philosophy, the word mind is still used in that same way today in metaphysics to differentiate it from talking about just the bodily organ. So if we want to talk about the mind in general usage as the brain, fine... But it's a lot like a scientist referring to the cosmic singularity in the Big Bang as God, and meaning it as nothing more than the original physical singularity. There's already a usage for he word God, and it means something different. The same applies to the word "mind."

Edited by saintphotios (02/29/12 07:51 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf] * 1
    #15880438 - 02/29/12 09:24 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

He also seemed to believe material only refers to hard bits of matter. Though material actually refers to anything that exists in the physical universe. This includes energy, atoms, light, mind, consciousness, thoughts, Metallica, Toblerone... you name it.




Meh... Looks like a lame definition to me.  I prefer to think of material as only macroscopic matter.  'Matter' ceases to be a meaningful descriptor at microscopic levels.

I know that the mystics and spiritual people around here love to debate whether things are 'material' or 'physical' but in my experience and opinion those descriptors are next to useless.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15880821 - 02/29/12 11:18 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

saintphotios said:
Again, the belief in a pure physical spirit doesn't conform the definition of spirit. Spirits are defined as non-corporeal beings, so someone who says they believe in physical spirits are talking about something else.





You said it buddy.....




Captain Morgan says, "yarrrgh, aint no other worlds matey"

Seriously though, how can something be incorporeal?

And if there are things that exist in worlds distinct from this one, how do we know of their existence???

And if those things or something like those things was ever discovered in this world... wouldnt it just be another part of this world?

Unless you are saying there are things in worlds that are completely separated from this world, in which case I would love to know how you know of these things?

Thankyou please shalom.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15881585 - 02/29/12 02:53 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Desert Elf said:
Quote:

saintphotios said:
Again, the belief in a pure physical spirit doesn't conform the definition of spirit. Spirits are defined as non-corporeal beings, so someone who says they believe in physical spirits are talking about something else.





You said it buddy.....




Captain Morgan says, "yarrrgh, aint no other worlds matey"

Seriously though, how can something be incorporeal?

And if there are things that exist in worlds distinct from this one, how do we know of their existence???

And if those things or something like those things was ever discovered in this world... wouldnt it just be another part of this world?

Unless you are saying there are things in worlds that are completely separated from this world, in which case I would love to know how you know of these things?

Thankyou please shalom.




You keep trying to do it... keep trying to bait me into the theology discussion. But I'm stronger than that(and not nearly high enough).

But I will say this... I think a better way to look at it would be in terms of realms. The universe, worlds, physical stuff, these things are all physical substance. So if there were incorporeal substances, it wouldn't make sense to refer to them as being within or outside the universe, but rather "co-subsisting" with the physical universe.

I think mathematics would be a good example (don't hold me to that just yet, for now it's just an example). Mathematical objects are real... they're abstract objects, but they exist independently of the mind(unlike concepts like love and fear) But where are they? We can only identify them using physical objects, but they are not identical with those physical objects.

There are inanimate physical objects, and animate physical objects. If you agreed that mathematical objects are real, inanimate abstract objects, it shouldn't be that big of a leap to consider the possibility of animate abstract objects... Granted, that alone shouldn't convince you of their existence, and I don't expect it to. But it also shouldn't be unfathomable as many atheists imply. There's been life on earth for hundreds of millions of years, and our grasp of mathematics has only gained any real headway over the last few thousand.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios] * 1
    #15881600 - 02/29/12 02:58 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Mathematical objects are real... they're abstract objects, but they exist independently of the mind(unlike concepts like love and fear)




How could you possibly know that?  :confused:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: DieCommie]
    #15881695 - 02/29/12 03:17 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

Mathematical objects are real... they're abstract objects, but they exist independently of the mind(unlike concepts like love and fear)




How could you possibly know that?  :confused:




It's fairly well established in mathematics... not everyone agrees, but mathematical realism is definitely the prevailing view. Quine drilled it home.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15881715 - 02/29/12 03:24 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Hmm, I guess I should read on that sometime.  I dont think I agree.  I think mathematical objects are 'real' but are still inventions of the mind or of consciousness.  That is, math is invented not discovered.  (where the difference between invention and discovery is usually what it boils down too.  Is a computer invented?  Or did we discover that the arrangement of atoms leads to computations?  Math comes about via the same answer)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: DieCommie]
    #15882017 - 02/29/12 04:38 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Hmm, I guess I should read on that sometime.  I dont think I agree.  I think mathematical objects are 'real' but are still inventions of the mind or of consciousness.  That is, math is invented not discovered.  (where the difference between invention and discovery is usually what it boils down too.  Is a computer invented?  Or did we discover that the arrangement of atoms leads to computations?  Math comes about via the same answer)




Look up Quine's indispensibility argument if you're interested... I don't really know shit about math, but it's a proof that our ontological commitments to things like quarks and electrons require ontological commitment to mathematics. Basically, if we say electrons are independently real, we have to say mathematics is independently real. Sounds simplistic, probably a poor explanation of it on my part, but no one's been able to refute it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15882259 - 02/29/12 05:34 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Are you able to give one example of a triangle existing independent of the mind?

The rules or properties that constitute a triangle are a set of 'recognisable' traits. You need to first be able to recognise what constitutes an angle, a set of three, and the recognition of shapes as whole units.

I believe mathematics is just a long list of labels for recognisable features or phenomena.
The rest is abstraction and logical reasoning... all that happens dependent of mind.

Of course, if there were no conscious beings existent, and three sticks happened to fall to the ground forming a triangle, the properties of a triangle are sitting there low and behold.

Without recognition though, there is no triangle, just 3 sticks on the floor.

Oops... i said 3 sticks.. i meant just sticks on the floor.

oops, i meant just nothing on the nothing.

oops.. i meant nothing.

The truth of the triangle remains in the absence of conscious beings. But the truth of the triangle is just it's ability to be recognised as such.

Recognition is everything.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Edited by Desert Elf (02/29/12 06:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15882277 - 02/29/12 05:37 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

The same goes with electrons, "electron" is just a word for something we can recognise about the physical world. Whether we experience electrons directly or not doesnt matter either, we are reffering to something specific.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15882393 - 02/29/12 06:08 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Just one thing before I go to sleep.

In the other thread, there was no disagreement in the fact that concept such as free will become redundant from a certain point of view.

Just in your assumption that having a certain point of view leaves you unable to discuss remnants of those concepts. It is not enough to just assume I have a worldview that excludes those concepts. For there is always 'that which the concept is pointing towards.'

The mission is to unravel what those things are. What is it we are actually pointing at. If you try to discuss free will from the prior assumption of an existent god, then the thing you are pointing at comes packaged in a whole host of prior assumptions. The same can happen from any point of view, but the point is to figure out the root of what is being discussed and explain the 'thing' in terms of your most rational capabilities.

So discussing free will from a materialistic POV would entail defining free will in terms of materialistic ideas. You call that 'watering down' but I would say it is the evolution of ideas.

After all, if the current definition implies irrational concepts, then the definition needs to be evolved to fit the most rational conceot we can come up with. The 'thing' we are pointing at remains the same always, but our assumptions about it are dissolved (read 'watered down') until all that is left is the thing alone. That which can be agreed upon, recognised  and discussed.

Just like rainbows. If our definition of rainbow included the existence of leprechauns, then we will have trouble discussing them with people who dont believe in leprechauns. You would then say that they have 'watered down' the definition of rainbows and are unfit to discuss them. All we want to do is find out what we can agree a rainbow is.

That is why I wish you would put forth your personal views, so they can be scrutinised. Not because I am a prick, but because that is the only point in discussion, to find points of agreement.

Salaam


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSalomon
ಠ︵ಠ balance ಠ_ಠ weaver ಠ‿ಠ
Male
Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 25,128
Loc: America, FUCK YEAH Flag
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15883347 - 02/29/12 09:40 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

what is the world but a bunch of thangs arranged in mathematical equations?


--------------------
EVERYTHING EVENTUALLY BECOMES A DESERT


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15883420 - 02/29/12 09:54 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Are you able to give one example of a triangle existing independent of the mind?



Not personally. I'm not a mathematician, so I'm not really qualified to completely defend their positions. I'm just saying according to the mathematics community (and I'm assuming by proxy the scientific community) would agree that math does exist independent of the mind.

I do know it's a sort of Platonist view though... idk if you're familiar with Platonic "forms" but it's similar to that. It's more complex than this, but think of wood. We all say that wood physically exists independently of the mind. If so, you should be able to form a mental picture of wood. So if I tell you to form a mental image of wood, then you think of a tree... well no, your mental image is of a tree, the tree is simply composed of wood. Maybe a chair... still not simply wood, it's a chair composed of wood. Then you finally break it down to smallest level, and think of a wood molecule. Now you're thinking of a molecule -- of wood. So Platonists would say it's impossible to observe matter -- we can only observe instances of matter. So they say chairs, trees, baseball bats, and wood molecules share a common "woodness"... we can observe those particular instances of woodness, but never purely wood. So wood is the form, which we can never observe the form of wood... only the particular object which we recognize as having the properties of wood whether it be trees or simply molecules. Most scientists don't really adhere to forms anymore(because it's more a philosophical position than scientific)... but in the instance of mathematics, Quine proved that we are committed to saying it does exist independently of the mind, although not physically. So most have accepted that it does, and "forms" is kinda sorta the mode in  which they're thinking it might exist.

Quote:

The same goes with electrons, "electron" is just a word for something we can recognise about the physical world. Whether we experience electrons directly or not doesnt matter either, we are reffering to something specific.



Well, it's a word referring to something actual... if we weren't here, it'd still be there, it just wouldn't be called anything. Mathematicians are saying math is the same way -- minus the physical part. You're saying you disagree -- so be it. But until someone refutes it, it's a scientific fact. Again, I'm not a mathematician, so I can't explain the ins and outs of why it's a proven fact, but if we're to accept evolution on the credibility of the scientific community, I'd think we'd have to accept math existing independently of human minds as fact based on the credibility of the mathematics community as well.

Quote:

Just in your assumption that having a certain point of view leaves you unable to discuss remnants of those concepts.



Not that materialists are unable to even talk about it... when I say they're unable, I mean adopting the position is inconsistent with the materialist worldview. Just like I'm not a determinist... I can still talk about it, it's just not consistent for me to adopt it. That essentially all I meant(almost anyway).

Quote:

So discussing free will from a materialistic POV would entail defining free will in terms of materialistic ideas. You call that 'watering down' but I would say it is the evolution of ideas.



No I was referring to compatibilism watering down the definition of free-will... they totally do. You and I truly disagree about free-will, that much is obvious. But compatibilists redefine free-will to mean something that you I don't mean at all to give the appearance that we actually agree when we don't at all. It just sweeps the actual disagreement under the philosophical rug. It's a cop-out on their part, and if nothing else, I hope we can agree that those guys suck.

Edited by saintphotios (02/29/12 10:14 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15884107 - 03/01/12 01:14 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

All you are saying is what I was saying.

That which differentiates anything about the physical world from anything else, remains, regardless of the observer.

But that doesn't mean triangles or wood exist in their pure forms in some other realm. It just means the recognisable traits of anything are always there, independant of the observer, but those traits become concepts as soon as they are recognisable as something 'other' than everything else.

That is why we have definitions.

If you were to ask me about the wooden chair I would say it is wood none the less, because what you are pointing at is wood, regardless of whether it also fits other definitions. The fact that it satisfies the definition of wood is enough to say it is wood.

Like you said originally, mathematical objects are a bad example to try and prove non-physical realms.

You would be better of stating what it is you believe and why you believe it to be true.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15884173 - 03/01/12 01:39 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

saintphotios said:

No I was referring to compatibilism watering down the definition of free-will... they totally do. You and I truly disagree about free-will, that much is obvious. But compatibilists redefine free-will to mean something that you I don't mean at all to give the appearance that we actually agree when we don't at all. It just sweeps the actual disagreement under the philosophical rug. It's a cop-out on their part, and if nothing else, I hope we can agree that those guys suck.




I would be a compatibilist, but compatibilism doesn't try to define free will so that it agrees with metaphysics. It defines it so that it doesn't include metaphysical assumptions.

A metaphysical definition of free will would likely fly in the face of reason, given what we currently know about the world.

The whole point is that when people used to talk about free will, they did so in the context of certain assumptions that were founded in flase beliefs about the world.

That doesnt mean what they were trying to discuss becomes non-existent just that our understanding has evolved to a more rational one.

The rainbow doesnt stop existing or requiring discussion when we discover their are no leprechauns, or in fact that there is no 'end' of the rainbow. But our definition must be compatible with our current understanding. Anything less would be fallacious.

Yet, many cannot let go.... it makes god sad.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15884201 - 03/01/12 01:52 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

A strict determinist would say "there is no free will because all your decisions are laid out in time"

We know it is not really like that. But even though our decisions are determined by already existing factors... it doesnt make them any less a decision.

My view is that, because we identify with the process as 'decision making' then 'we' have that ability. This is true regardless of whether the process is determined or not, because we identify with the experience as it unfolds.

I also dont see how metaphysics provides any other possibilty, unless you make an appeal to 'magical' forces that cannot be proven to exist.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Edited by Desert Elf (03/01/12 01:57 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15887482 - 03/01/12 07:41 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

That which differentiates anything about the physical world from anything else, remains, regardless of the observer.



Right but the materialist would say nothing differentiates the physical world from anything else... b/c all there is, all that exists, is that which exists in the physical world. To say otherwise is an adoption of metaphysics, and a rejection of materialism. Mathematics says otherwise... it say 1.)we can observe mathematics but 2.)it doesn't exist in the physical world -- that alone constitutes metaphysics.

Quote:

But that doesn't mean triangles or wood exist in their pure forms in some other realm.



Again... I understand that's your possession, but nonetheless, the mathematics community disagrees with you on this. And your disagreement is tantamount to rejecting evolution (I'd argue worse... as it undercuts fundamental physics)

Quote:

Like you said originally, mathematical objects are a bad example to try and prove non-physical realms.



Not really, because it's already been proven. You repeatedly stated that you disagree with them on this, but they're far more qualified to comment on this than either one of us.

Quote:

The whole point is that when people used to talk about free will, they did so in the context of certain assumptions that were founded in flase beliefs about the world.



There were plenty of ancient Greek materialists... they didn't fully understand what atoms were, but this didn't affect the free-will discussion. They more or less held the same assumptions as we do... the ones that matter anyway.

Quote:

I would be a compatibilist, but compatibilism doesn't try to define free will so that it agrees with metaphysics. It defines it so that it doesn't include metaphysical assumptions.



Ehhh... not really, the reason I have a problem with it has nothing to do with metaphysics, but because the compatibilist definition is so vague that it's more or less useless, which is why I called it trivial. They basically define it as "the freedom to act." Which like I said before, freedom from what? Law of physics? They'd say no, physics still apply. So freedom from what? The answers to that have been varying and never very useful. A definition of free-will is only useful if it can answer the "free from what" question... compatibilism doesn't do that. It brushes that question under the rug.

Quote:

A strict determinist would say "there is no free will because all your decisions are laid out in time"

We know it is not really like that. But even though our decisions are determined by already existing factors... it doesnt make them any less a decision.




Hopefully here we can finally get face-to-face with the real issue. The determinist would rather say that all physical events are caused by prior physical events. And this is important. When a scientists sees a physical event, they can never say "it just happened." It must have been caused but another physical event or condition. So if you're a materialist, and you see a human being... it is still just many complex physical processes. To say that there's something going on in a human body or human mind that is something more than a physical process, you reject materialism. So because we are purely physical being, every action that occurs must be caused by prior physical events. To deny this is to say that something non-physical occured that we can't fully account for. To say, yes, all of this, no matter how complex or despite our limited understanding of neuroscience, was nonetheless CAUSED by prior physical events. If so, that's determinism. It doesn't mean that a decision wasn't made... what it means is that each decision is simply a physical event, no matter how complex or what our consciousness tells us...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15887712 - 03/01/12 08:31 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

You keep saying its been 'proven' and that the community believes this...  Where do you get this?  Are you talking about the philosophy community or the mathematics community?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: DieCommie]
    #15887746 - 03/01/12 08:38 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
You keep saying its been 'proven' and that the community believes this...  Where do you get this?  Are you talking about the philosophy community or the mathematics community?




Quote:

saintphotios said:Look up Quine's indispensibility argument if you're interested... I don't really know shit about math, but it's a proof that our ontological commitments to things like quarks and electrons require ontological commitment to mathematics. Basically, if we say electrons are independently real, we have to say mathematics is independently real. Sounds simplistic, probably a poor explanation of it on my part, but no one's been able to refute it.




Mathematics community... it didn't start with Quine, but that's when it became the standard, and when the scientific community became obligated to adhere to it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15887763 - 03/01/12 08:41 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

If I understand what you are claiming, I don't believe that for a second.  I think you are extrapolating too much from Quine's argument.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: DieCommie]
    #15887836 - 03/01/12 08:52 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
You keep saying its been 'proven' and that the community believes this...  Where do you get this?  Are you talking about the philosophy community or the mathematics community?



Quote:

DieCommie said:
If I understand what you are claiming, I don't believe that for a second.  I think you are extrapolating too much from Quine's argument.




Take it up with the mathematicians and mathematic philosophers... because that's exactly what it means. Again, not EVERYONE agrees with it, but then again, neither do all scientists adhere to evolution -- only the credible... same with mathematical realism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/

EDIT: it should be noted, lots of mathematicians adhered to realism before Quine, it isn't a new position. I cite Quine because he 1.) proved what many mathematicians already adhered to and 2.) his argument made mathematical realism applicable to the scientific community.

Edited by saintphotios (03/01/12 09:01 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15887854 - 03/01/12 08:55 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

So you are claiming that the whole section on 'objections' there in your link is just as out of line as objections to evolution?  :rolleyes:

Ill say again, I think you are extrapolating it too far.

Furthermore, Im not even convinced the ideas surrounding mathematical realism are really relevant to this discussion.  :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: DieCommie]
    #15887928 - 03/01/12 09:11 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

So you are claiming that the whole section on 'objections' there in your link is just as out of line as objections to evolution?



In the sense that none of them are taken seriously by mathematicians, and none of them have gained any traction in the mathematical community, yes... that's exactly what I'm saying. And you not understanding the argument doesn't make it any less valid. Plus most of the objections don't even reject the conclusion of the argument, but rather individual tenants. There are mathematicians that take issue with the argument that nonetheless still accept mathematical entities as real.

Quote:

Ill say again, I think you are extrapolating it too far.



Again, that's only because you're not familiar with the argument or philosophy of mathematics. Mathematical realism is the norm... you can accept that, or you reject it for no other reason than you don't understand it or it somehow seems counter-intuitive to you. Not my problem.

Quote:

Furthermore, Im not even convinced the ideas surrounding mathematical realism are really relevant to this discussion.



Before the discussion got derailed by questioning a widely held mathematical position... it was partly about the actual existence of non-physical entities. This argument proved (what was already believed for quite sometime) the existence of mathematical entities.

Edited by saintphotios (03/01/12 09:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Icelander]
    #15887949 - 03/01/12 09:16 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
I'm a Philatelist.:ass:




"I didn't know you masturbated."


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15888219 - 03/01/12 10:21 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

saintphotios said:
Mathematical realism is the norm... you can accept that, or you reject it for no other reason than you don't understand it or it somehow seems counter-intuitive to you. Not my problem.





Your own link suggests otherwise.  I read it before you linked it, and did not draw this conclusion at all.  Have you actually read it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: DieCommie]
    #15888327 - 03/01/12 10:50 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

saintphotios said:
Mathematical realism is the norm... you can accept that, or you reject it for no other reason than you don't understand it or it somehow seems counter-intuitive to you. Not my problem.





Your own link suggests otherwise.  I read it before you linked it, and did not draw this conclusion at all.  Have you actually read it?




Yes... I've taken multiple classes dealing with philosophy of mathematics, as well as philosophy of science, and I'm very familiar with the status of the argument in both the philosophy fields and mathematics fields. I'm not tooting my own horn or saying that I'm an expert in either field, but I'm definitely familiar with it enough to assess where the arguments stand.

The central issue here is not platonism. That's where the objections are directed. This discussion aside, it's fair to say that mathematical realism is adhered to by the majority of the mathematical community. That's my point, and I see no reason not to defer to them on these matters. If this is still bugging you, feel free to call around. The philosophical community is heavily divided and always will be. And that's where you see these objections come into play -- not the mathematics community. The reason for this is that mathematicians aren't concerned with epistemology or platonism. Those are philosophical questions that we are no closer to coming to a consensus than we were 2,000 years ago. The vast majority of those objections are coming from philosophers, and they rarely make it into the mathematical discourse, because they're concerned with issues that have absolutely nothing to do with math.

So, because I made a single point concerning math (which really shouldn't be this involved), the only authority to defer to would be mathematics. And insofar as this argument is relevant (which is in mathematics -- not platonism), it's fair to say that if we're to take any position it would be toward mathematical realism. Quine and Putnam, two of the most influential philosophers of 20th century adhered to it. Kurt Godel adhered to it(one of the most important mathematicians and logicians of all time). And as a result, that's where the majority of mathematics schools went.

If you really think those couple of objections are damning, it's nothing compared to the endless supply of objections to nominalism... which come from every direction. There will be detractors to any theory... but the fact that almost all objections from this one are coming from epistemological perspectives, they have zero bearing on this discussion.

Edited by saintphotios (03/01/12 10:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr Person
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios] * 1
    #15888549 - 03/01/12 11:53 PM (12 years, 30 days ago)

DieCommie do you ever actually argue a point?  I look at your ratings, and you seem to get a lot of respect, but all I ever see from you are smug statements of disagreement as if they are fact.  Lively intellectual debate requires a modicum of empathy or understanding between parties such as, "I understand where you are coming from and here's why you're wrong..."

How is anyone supposed to logically argue against, "I disagree :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:"?  From what I can tell, you can't see past your own extremely narrow and opinion based worldview enough to actually understand, much less refute anything you think you disagree with.  There are no counterpoints or logic it's just "does not compute" error messages.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Mr Person]
    #15888585 - 03/02/12 12:09 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

I think you just dont like my points :razz:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr Person
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: DieCommie]
    #15888620 - 03/02/12 12:24 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Yet another unsubstantiated opinion that is impossible to argue with logic. :shrug: You debate like my dad...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Mr Person]
    #15888674 - 03/02/12 12:46 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

In all fairness, I am a total prick... perhaps if I were more of a "people person" this would all go along a little more smoothly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15888692 - 03/02/12 12:50 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

I thought the posts were fine.  :shrug:

I asked some questions, thought something was fishy.  I got some answers and some key words.  Ironically after reading the same source cited to me, I came to the opposite conclusion!  Still smells fishy to me, but your posts explained it well.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: DieCommie]
    #15888739 - 03/02/12 01:05 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I thought the posts were fine.  :shrug:

I asked some questions, thought something was fishy.  I got some answers and some key words.  Ironically after reading the same source cited to me, I came to the opposite conclusion!  Still smells fishy to me, but your posts explained it well.




I get the fishy aspect... because you have people in two different fields deliberating about different aspects of the same issue. It gets more convoluted because the issues debated by the philosophy dudes doesn't necessarily impact the issue from a mathematical POV.

But, even if you're not convinced that -- yes, mathematical entities are definitely real. The fact that the view is prominent, at the very least, says there's pretty good evidence for it. And that's really what the initial disagreement with the OP was about. I was saying that there was credible evidence of non-physical entities. So I think we can accept that there is without being totally sold on the argument in its entirety.

Edited by saintphotios (03/02/12 01:07 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15888838 - 03/02/12 02:02 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Philosophers like to play word games. Just because philosophy can 'prove' something with words, means nothing.

I read a book once called the 'Problem of God'

The book was entirely arguments FOR the existence of god. I am no more convinced.

Watchmaker... bunk.

Ontological... bunk.

Cosmological..... bunk.


That the mathematical arm of philosophy can 'prove' that mathematical object are 'real'... means nothing.

It has no bearing on the fundamentals of mathematics, so no, it does not undermine physics or maths.

"mathematical objects are real, because mathematicians use them" is just as weak an argument as "god is real because people talk about him"

Still no posts about what it is you believe.... just quoting what I say and spewing what you have heard in class. Just like a creationist repeating Ray Comfort facts.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15888905 - 03/02/12 02:41 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

And what the heck are you talking about with compatibilism.

Compatibilists merely adhere to the belief that free will is compatible with determinism. This is rational stance, becuase people 'experience' free will, and as such, if that experience was somehow in conflict with determinism, then it raises questions.

All they are saying is "just because our decisions are caused by prior events, doesnt mean we dont make those decisions"

In responce to your question "freedom from what?"

I explained this already, but you seem to choose not to read what others are saying. As such, instead of staying on the subject you digress onto a discussion about Ancient Greeks and try to prove some other point.

But here it is again:

When we talk about freedom, we are referring to something. Freedom can be relative, so just because we are not 'free' from the physical world of cause and effect, doesnt mean we are not free within some other framework.

It could be said that our will is free, in comparison to lesser animals which act a lot more predictably upon their instincts.

If you through a piece of meat to a lion, it will probably consume it if it is hungry. If you do the same to a human, even if he is hungry he might just say "i dont eat meat"

Abstract thinking allows us to act in a way that doesnt just follow basic instinct, even if you believe that under the surface we are still doing so. This is why people can abstain from sexual urges, violence, consumption etc.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15888936 - 03/02/12 03:10 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

That the mathematical arm of philosophy can 'prove' that mathematical object are 'real'... means nothing.

It has no bearing on the fundamentals of mathematics, so no, it does not undermine physics or maths.




You apparently have some coffee-shop idea about philosophy. Philosophers were the ones that came up with the scientific method. Besides, mathematicians are the ones adhering to this position, not philosophers. Philosophers are the only ones rejecting it. So the fact that you think it has no bearing on mathematics just tells me you don't actually understand the argument.

Quote:

All they are saying is "just because our decisions are caused by prior events, doesnt mean we dont make those decisions"



And the response to that would be "just because we make those decisions, doesn't mean they weren't caused by prior events" hence... determinism! In this universe, most people agree that causes occur first, you're attempt to put the effect first. Not allowed.

Quote:

I explained this already



No... you definitely didn't.

Quote:

When we talk about freedom, we are referring to something.



Great... now what is that something?

Quote:

Freedom can be relative, so just because we are not 'free' from the physical world of cause and effect, doesnt mean we are not free within some other framework.



Relative or not... free from what?

Quote:

It could be said that our will is free, in comparison to lesser animals which act a lot more predictably upon their instincts.



Still doesn't answer the question. You say that freedom is relative because we have consciousness and can think. But either consciousness and critical thinking are caused by natural forces or they aren't. It doesn't mean that we're relatively more free, it just means that animals, and their lack of human cognitive faculties are easier to understand. So no, that still doesn't answer the "free from what".

Quote:

If you through a piece of meat to a lion, it will probably consume it if it is hungry. If you do the same to a human, even if he is hungry he might just say "i dont eat meat"



Right, human brains are more complex than lion brains. We've established that. But if you're a materialist, then both are caused by physical occurrences. Just because one is more complex does not make it more free. You're confusing complexity with freedom. If the argument complexity-of-the-will, then I'd gladly agree with you.

Quote:

Abstract thinking allows us to act in a way that doesnt just follow basic instinct, even if you believe that under the surface we are still doing so. This is why people can abstain from sexual urges, violence, consumption etc.



Again, you're falling back on complexity... you've yet to answer the initial question... "free from what?"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15888945 - 03/02/12 03:16 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

saintphotios said:

Quote:

A strict determinist would say "there is no free will because all your decisions are laid out in time"

We know it is not really like that. But even though our decisions are determined by already existing factors... it doesnt make them any less a decision.




Hopefully here we can finally get face-to-face with the real issue. The determinist would rather say that all physical events are caused by prior physical events. And this is important. When a scientists sees a physical event, they can never say "it just happened." It must have been caused but another physical event or condition. So if you're a materialist, and you see a human being... it is still just many complex physical processes. To say that there's something going on in a human body or human mind that is something more than a physical process, you reject materialism. So because we are purely physical being, every action that occurs must be caused by prior physical events. To deny this is to say that something non-physical occured that we can't fully account for. To say, yes, all of this, no matter how complex or despite our limited understanding of neuroscience, was nonetheless CAUSED by prior physical events. If so, that's determinism. It doesn't mean that a decision wasn't made... what it means is that each decision is simply a physical event, no matter how complex or what our consciousness tells us...




You quote me, then basically repeat exactly what I said, and have been saying all along. Either you are terribly lost and dont know what it is you believe... which is ok.. or      you are not actually reading what I am saying. Or perhaps you just concede.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15888969 - 03/02/12 03:29 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

You quote me, then basically repeat exactly what I said, and have been saying all along. Either you are terribly lost and dont know what it is you believe... which is ok.. or      you are not actually reading what I am saying. Or perhaps you just concede.




Except I'm taking what you're saying to its logical conclusions... you're not. You're inserting some mythical notion of freedom into it that doesn't exist. Which is why you've what to give a coherent answer to... again, hate to sound like a broken record, "free from what?"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15889021 - 03/02/12 03:59 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

No..... you are trying to make logical conclusions... but are failing. Due to the fact you don't actually read what I'm saying.


You have repeated my points in your own posts, it is as if you are not reading what is being said, just responding as the thoughts pop into your head.

Quote:

All they are saying is "just because our decisions are caused by prior events, doesnt mean we dont make those decisions"


And the response to that would be "just because we make those decisions, doesn't mean they weren't caused by prior events" hence... determinism! In this universe, most people agree that causes occur first, you're attempt to put the effect first. Not allowed.


you see what you did there? I didn't imply a temporal order at all. I implied that those two facts do not exclude each other... not that one precedes the other.

Then you reply by reversing what I said... which still doesnt imply a temporal order, it just repeats the same fact. 

If I go all the way back I can show you exactly what you have done wrong in each response.

You are not drawing logical conclusions, you are extracting pieces of my post, then responding to them as if I am implying something else altogether.

I say "I have explained this already".... "No you havent"

WTF... yes i did. How is that a logical conclusion? If you read what I write straight after that, then go back to the thread in which you originally asked the question... you will see  in fact I did give the explanation.


Then you take that explanation, and say "well that is still determinism"... which is precisely my point, that the two are compatible.

You trollin' or what?


And no, i am not equating freedom with complexity, although that freedom is caused by complexity.

The sense that I am saying our will is free, is not that it is free from determinism. It is free in the context of human experience.

When we look at other animals, they seem imprisoned by the instinctual drives... when we look at ourselves, we seem to have more options. This can be said to be freedom of will.

You repeatedly ignore what I have said in order to establish your point.. or as far as anyone can tell, a lack thereof.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15889065 - 03/02/12 04:48 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

you see what you did there? I didn't imply a temporal order at all. I implied that those two facts do not exclude each other... not that one precedes the other.

Then you reply by reversing what I said... which still doesnt imply a temporal order, it just repeats the same fact.



:thisfuckinguy:

That's the problem, one DOES precede the other, and you're refusing to acknowledge that. Causes ALWAYS precede their effects. Otherwise, the effect is uncaused, and then it's no longer effect. It's a random phenomenon -- which is diametrically opposed to materialism.  Maybe there's too much pride tied up in this thread, so an unbiased referee is needed, or perhaps a fight to the death. I've not only read everything you've said, but answered it. And all you say is "you're not listening"...

For any event or occurrence, there is either a cause, or there isn't. If there is a cause, then you should be able to identify that cause.

Quote:

Then you take that explanation, and say "well that is still determinism"... which is precisely my point, that the two are compatible.




This is why no one (apart from random people on message boards, that is) takes compatibilism seriously. There is no concrete definition of freedom. You hold to all the same tenants as determinists -- only determinists are aware of the implications of those beliefs, and compatibilists are not.

It's the same reason when faced with the pivotal question of "free from what" there is no direct answer. You veer off into compatibilist rabbit-trailing like "but a decision is still made" and whatnot. But you still can't answer that. No compatibilist can, which is why no one has adopted the view since the dawn of modern science, and understood the implications of cause/effect.

I went through the trouble, point by point, of showing that your last pseudo-explanation was not an answer. You said complexity is the cause of free-will... so how so? Free from what? If complexity is the key to this, then explain exactly what complexity frees the will from if not physical cause and effect?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15889092 - 03/02/12 05:08 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

You come here and try to prove non-physical realms by stating that mathematical philosophy has proven the realism of mathematical objects. Admitting you don't have the expertise to defend those arguments.

This is like somebody arguing for the existence of god by referring to the body of philosophical arguments for the existence of god, without being able to defend those arguments... which can be debunked as mere word games, with no bearing on the state of reality.

Even if those arguments are true and sound and I can agree, they still dont prove the existence of 'other realms' Just that things may exist in reality and still be intangible. I would argue that any such thing is the result of cognitive processes :shrug:

More to the point it certainly does not prove the existence of non-physical beings.



But lets go right back..

The only point you have made, which just so happens to be the one you refuse to address, was that 'Free Will' is only a valid discussion in metaphysical terms.

I use capitals in Free Will because you maintain that the use of the expression is exclusive to a metaphysical debate that is thousands of years old. You maintain also that the expression loses meaning without a metaphysical framework to discuss it.

To a certain extent, I agree. If you definition of Free Will, relies upon irrational concepts, then I would refute your definition.

But what is it that is actually being referred to? I gave my definition of will and freedom, both of which are things that all people can point to and agree to exist in the world. Seemingly a deterministic world would conflict with those experiences... but I would argue, only if you still maintain irrational concepts such as the soul and self as 'other' than part of the physical world.

It is fine if you have a metaphysical worldview, I dont mind what you want to think. But you state that Free Will exists, and that it depends upon metaphysical concepts. All I want is for you to put forth your reasons for believing this. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss.

I assume define Free Will as a will or 'mind' that is independant of the physical world.

My only point is that these concepts are irrational from the start, and therefore the debate is pointless in those terms. Therefore, the debate must move from those terms to a strict definition of those terms that only imply the 'thing' that is in question... in this case , the human sense of having the ability to make decisions, and whether that 'will' can be said to be free.

I say it can by a relativistic point of view. In the same way a civilian can be called free, relative to a man in prison. You may argue that the civilian is a prisoner of society, but he is still free relative to something else.

A worthy discussion regardless of anyone's definition of 'free'.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15889105 - 03/02/12 05:17 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

saintphotios said:
That's the problem, one DOES precede the other, and you're refusing to acknowledge that. Causes ALWAYS precede their effects. Otherwise, the effect is uncaused, and then it's no longer effect. It's a random phenomenon -- which is diametrically opposed to materialism.  Maybe there's too much pride tied up in this thread, so an unbiased referee is needed, or perhaps a fight to the death. I've not only read everything you've said, but answered it. And all you say is "you're not listening"...

For any event or occurrence, there is either a cause, or there isn't. If there is a cause, then you should be able to identify that cause.





I dont deny cause and effect. (without getting into improbablities etc)

My staements was that "Just because the world is deterministic, doesn't mean we dont make decisions"

In that statement I have not implied a temporal order. I am not saying "Our decisions precede the effect of a cause"

That would be paradoxical. But I didnt say that.

I am simply equating the determined, physical processes that underpin decision making with the fact that people make decisions.

The subjective experience of those physical processes as they happen, does not come into conflict with the fact that they occur.

Duh.

See.... you are just plain old wrong. again.


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15889109 - 03/02/12 05:18 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Great... so basically your position is that people make decisions. No shit? How long did you have to mull it over before arriving at this revelation?

:jokerclap:


EDIT: btw, there's absolutely no difference at all in your position and that of determinism. Keep it up if you like, but there's really no point in insisting that you believe in free-will. fyi, determinism doesn't deny that people make decisions.

Edited by saintphotios (03/02/12 05:28 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15889137 - 03/02/12 05:32 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Yes, and if you put the metaphysical bullshit aside, that is all the debate boils down to.

You keep saying "freedom from what"

As if I am adhering to a beliefe that our will is free at all.

If you go back to the other thread and actually read it, you will see that I was only stating that humans have will, the ability to make decisions. I only went on to discuss the freedom of will because another member asked whether our will can be considered free.

I was simply putting forth possible examples of how our will can be said to be free, which it can, relative to other animals. This is the point of discussion.

But seeing as you have a special definition of Free Will, which you claim to exist and to be reliant on metaphysical concepts.. how about you address your own position on the matter?

Whether you think my conclusions are pointless, matters not to me. :shrug:


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15889160 - 03/02/12 05:44 AM (12 years, 30 days ago)

Quote:

saintphotios said:
EDIT: btw, there's absolutely no difference at all in your position and that of determinism. Keep it up if you like, but there's really no point in insisting that you believe in free-will. fyi, determinism doesn't deny that people make decisions.





Can you please sum up what exactly you think my position is?

I was the one taking a deterministic stance. I was also taking a materialistic stance, a compatabilist stance and an atheist stance.

There is no conflict because that is my stance.

I believe Free Will, must be defined without concepts such as the soul, because they are irrational.
I believe free will must be defined at all because humans feels as if they have it.
I define free will as our ability to make decisions which has the freedom to take a deliberate course of action. That it is free depends on what you want to class as free. Though I belive our will can be said to be free.
I believe that view of the experience of decision making, is not in conflict with my deterministic view, nor my atheistic view.

:shrug:

Regardless of what you think of my views, they are sound and you have not put forward your metaphysical explanations for scrutiny.

So well done, you have acheived letting everyone know you have a metaphysical worldview that you cant be bothered to defend, and that you take philosophy classes.

:thumbup:

Heres to getting to know one another!

Shalom


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15891537 - 03/02/12 05:34 PM (12 years, 29 days ago)

Quote:

Can you please sum up what exactly you think my position is?

I was the one taking a deterministic stance. I was also taking a materialistic stance, a compatabilist stance and an atheist stance.




Ok let me put it this way... determinism is generally thought to be opposed to indeterminism(free-will). The fact that compatibilism even exists as a concept is proof enough of this (bc if the two positions weren't opposed from the start, there would be nothing to make compatible).

Now given this, in order for someone to adopt the position of free-will, in order to even come up with the term, there would have to be actual points of disagreement between their position and that of determinism. That's why I have a problem with compatibilism... there are no points of disagreement between compatibilists and determinists. Compatibilists just use the word "free-will" in a different way than indeterminists(which have actual disagreements with determinists). If there are no points of disagreement between two position, then they aren't actually two positions. They're just one position going by two different names, serving no purpose other than to muddle the discussion (nowhere more evident than in this thread).

We all know that humans have a "will"... the only justification for tagging on "free" to the beginning of that is to distinguish it from the type of determined will espoused by determinism. Compatibilists have nothing to distinguish themselves from that type of will, as they agree with determinists on every single point, so there's no reason to say that it's "free-will". The only thing that could possibly separate one's view from the type of will espoused by determinism is the introduction of metaphysics.

I understand you think metaphysics is absurd, and that it makes no sense... but nonetheless, it's the only thing that would introduce a new meaning to the type of will adhered to by determinism (and so-called compatibilists), justifying tagging on "free" to the beginning of "will".

Hopefully that was a little more clear... because the real disagreement here is about terminology.

Quote:

I believe Free Will, must be defined without concepts such as the soul, because they are irrational.



Right... I get that. I'm hoping that I showed above why there's no reason to add "free" to the beginning of it. Because it either 1.) implies something that you as a determinist don't really believe 2.)or it's redundant, because by "free" you just mean that we make decisions based on our will, which would make "free-will" synonymous with saying "will-will"... it's redundant. That's my point.

Quote:

I believe free will must be defined at all because humans feels as if they have it.



Yes, but again, adding "free" to the beginning doesn't say anything about that feeling that simply saying "will" lacks.

Quote:

I define free will as our ability to make decisions which has the freedom to take a deliberate course of action.



Right, and again, as I hope I made clear, the word "will" implies that very same deliberate course of action -- no need to add free.

.........So anyway, you might ask why metaphysics allows the use of "free-will" without redundancy that determinism has. The reason adding "free" to the term "will" upon the introduction of metaphysics is that metaphysics is a dualist position. It often adheres to non-physical entities like the "soul" and the "mind" apart from the physical brain. Again, I know you think that's nonsense, but that's beside the point here of why it uses the term "free-will" instead of just "will". Now for materialists, ultimately our will has a causal relationship with the forces of nature. Forces of nature determine what our "will" will ultimately be, and there can be no other causes, because the forces of nature and material is all that exists. For the dualist, forces like the soul and mind are not physical. So if they happen to take the position that there is a causal relationship between our soul and our will, or our metaphysical mind and our will, the only reason they would say "free-will" is to say that our "will" has a causal relationship with something else other than merely physical forces. Without the addition of those non-physical forces, saying "free-will" would also be redundant. And this is why in the other thread, I said that using terminology like "free-will" only applies to dualists. If you're a materialist, it's just being redundant.

Edited by saintphotios (03/02/12 05:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15891642 - 03/02/12 06:00 PM (12 years, 29 days ago)

Also, you're wanting me to justify a believe in metaphysics, and by extension -- God, if that's what it entails.

Maybe you think shying away from that discussion is a cop-out. But hopefully you'll understand that what you're asking is about 5 separate discussions.

1.)I'd have to prove metaphysics
2.)I'd have to prove epistemically, how we can know of such non-physical forces
3.)I'd have to prove what method we'd use to determine such forces.
4.)I'd have to prove the worldview that positions like metaphysics and theism fit into
5.)What is probably the biggest chore, proving that of the metaphysical entities, that a particular God exists, and if so, which one.

This doesn't even touch on the issue of the will... which is what you were initially wanting an explanation for. Anyone that claims to have simple, brief explanation for these things isn't to be trusted. It's like asking to prove quantum physics. I'd have to first prove every theory leading up to quantum physics to accomplish such a task... there's simply no way to do it briefly and concisely.

That's why it was never my goal to prove free-will... but simply to show that the free-will discussion is only applicable within the sphere of metaphysics. Fair enough?

Edited by saintphotios (03/02/12 06:02 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDesert Elf

Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 765
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15893527 - 03/03/12 04:42 AM (12 years, 29 days ago)

Totally agree. In fact that is all you needed to say.

But I hope you agree that the discussion on free will is valid from any standpoint.

So long as you are willing to only look at what free will can be defined as from that standpoint.

The will part is easy because determinism doesnt conflict with the fact that people make decisions.

The free part is tricky because like you say, it refers to the historical usage, of being free from physical causes.

Obviously there would be a conflict there, but the discussion then boils down to "in what sense can we call our will 'free'"

I would say this issue is intertwined with human's feeling as though their decision making is different to that of other animals.

Some might be inclined to say that is because we have a soul which adds a new depth to our consciousness, I would say it is our highly developed cognitive abilities, such as abstract thinking that give us the sense of freedom in our decision making. Even if we remain bound by physical causes.

Of course, if the historical usage of Free Will implies metaphysics, then we have to 'water down' the definition so we are only referring to things we can point to.

shalom


--------------------
Om Bhur Bhuvah Svaha
Tat Savitur Varenyam
Bhargo Devasya Dhimahi
Dhiyo Yo Nah Prachodayat

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineplasma21
Meh
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/22/11
Posts: 338
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15893710 - 03/03/12 07:38 AM (12 years, 28 days ago)

Nihilism is the way to go methinks

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: Desert Elf]
    #15897473 - 03/04/12 02:14 AM (12 years, 28 days ago)

All these -isms and -ists :wtf:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecircastes
Big Questions Small Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/14/10
Posts: 8,781
Loc: straya Flag
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #15897508 - 03/04/12 02:22 AM (12 years, 28 days ago)

There's only one thing to know - your own being, and to know it is to be it, and that is the only way, and that is the only knowledge.

There is nothing else to know. There is no other knowledge.

The universe has no secrets as it is just an empty illusion inside your consciousness; it is not there. All of quantum mechanics and chemistry and what not is all hubris in the context of knowledge of the universe. There is only one thing to know...

It's all a joke, a game, a waste of time, and most of all it is absolutely nothing.


--------------------
My solitude...
My shield...
My armour...

TESTED
WITH
FULL
FORCE

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: circastes]
    #15897862 - 03/04/12 04:52 AM (12 years, 28 days ago)

No, the universe is, therefor I am :smile:


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesaintphotios
Stranger
Male


Registered: 02/23/12
Posts: 448
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #15900090 - 03/04/12 05:18 PM (12 years, 27 days ago)

Quote:

Obviously there would be a conflict there, but the discussion then boils down to "in what sense can we call our will 'free'"




And this is why I'm in favor of treating determinism and compatibilism as identical... because I think in almost all cases, they would answer this question in the exact same way -- with just slightly different terminology.

Quote:

I would say this issue is intertwined with human's feeling as though their decision making is different to that of other animals.




Yeah, and I think the materialist, in order to avoid inconsistencies, would need to say that while our decision making is more complex than other animals, they ultimately share the same root causes -- natural causes(which I think most would, but using "free-will" terminology makes it seem like there are caveats to those natural causes that neither determinists nor compatibilists would really subscribe to).

Quote:

There's only one thing to know - your own being, and to know it is to be it, and that is the only way, and that is the only knowledge.



:excusemeno: No, you sir, are just high.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: Atheist, materialist, theist, lets clarify. [Re: saintphotios]
    #15903818 - 03/05/12 01:50 PM (12 years, 26 days ago)

I assume this reply went to circastes :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Fellow Atheists / Agnostics
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Atheist 9,506 97 08/31/07 02:51 PM
by RedNucleus
* World's Foremost Atheist?
( 1 2 all )
OrgoneConclusion 2,066 35 01/02/09 11:35 AM
by andrewss
* Theists Outnumber Atheists - Lemme Tell You Why
( 1 2 3 4 all )
DiploidM 5,611 79 08/17/05 05:58 PM
by Icelander
* Alien signal?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SeussA 5,224 60 09/08/04 12:23 PM
by Ego Death
* Ok so i don't understand you athiests/materialists... daytripper23 1,034 3 04/20/07 08:04 PM
by toastdth
* atheists, do you believe in free will?
( 1 2 all )
Deviate 1,293 25 12/27/05 11:02 AM
by spud
* Question to Atheists
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 2,538 27 08/12/03 09:32 PM
by Pyronate
* 33 Questions that will make you an atheist
( 1 2 3 all )
top 4,262 46 11/20/05 02:47 AM
by detergent

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,537 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 35 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.051 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 14 queries.