Suppose two "perspectives" - first person and third.
Posit that we cannot know what causes our sensations.
Supose first person accounts to be "more certain" than third person accounts.
Conclude that one doesn't see what one's eyes see.
Now I don't follow that. The argument is incomplete. — Banno
The argument is in the OP.What is the argument? — Banno
Fun fact 2: There are a countable number of points with rational coordinates and an uncountable number of points with irrational coordinates (and some with mixed, as in (1,pi), which I'll ignore). This makes talking about probability difficult as the straightforward way of calculating probabilityFun fact: if you did throw a dart at an infinitely dividable board, and you got the x,y coordinates of the point it landed, you'd be more likely to land on irrational numbers than rational — flannel jesus
So, do you believe that the man in the OP does not have free will? At the moment, the poll is 80% does not have free will and 20% other.No, the reason is that people cannot cope with the fact that we don't have free will. — Christoffer
So he goes directly diagonally. The covering is removed. Only his diagonal path is black. The remainder of the field has been painted white. Did he have free will, or not?Logically, he would go directly diagonally across the field. Being tired he decides not to exercise his free will as to another path. I don't get it. — jgill
It's certainly simplified but I don't think it's incorrect. An in-depth discussion might require an entire book of its own.I think that's a caricature. It would take a bit to unpack it all. — baker
Check YouTube for multiple criticisms of Craig's Kalam Argument.I’d love to hear your thought on how his arguments don’t hold up! — T4YLOR
More at ProgressiveRegressive_Excerpt.docxProgressive toward what? — baker
It seems obvious to me that for many believers, believing in witchcraft and demons, and denying evolution and geology (Young Earth Creationism) derive from Christian belief. Not for liberal Christians. But for Christians who take the Bible literally, i.e., fundamentalists. For example, Sarah Palin and Mike Johnson are fundamentalist Christian lunatics.it seems hard to justify the idea that religion makes people particularly more regressive — Count Timothy von Icarus
Quite a list but not to the point.Hegel, Cantor, Maimonides, Descartes, Dogen, Avicenna, Augustine, Eriugena, Proclus, Newton, Eckhart, Avarroese, Leibniz, Porphyry, Pascale, Maxwell, Berkeley, Ibn Sina, Bonaventure, Hildegard, Al-Ghazai, Cusa, Erasmus, Rumi, Merton, Plotinius, Anselm, Abelard, Al-Farabi, Ibn Kaldun, Plato, Schelling, Bacon, Magnus, Boyle, Kelvin, Eddington, Pierce, Godel, Faraday, Mendel, Pastier, Lister — Count Timothy von Icarus
Josh, you seem to have some objection. Can you put it in your own words?( Lisa Barrett, How Emotions are Made)
I do.Do you suppose there might also be educated Christians and uneducated atheists? — Hanover
If someone is a fundamentalist Christian then their religion MUST accept a worldwide flood. Etc."CAN religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview?" or "can religion be USED to perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview". — LuckyR
Good point. The only candidate for our permanent, enduring self is our awareness. But we also have a relative self. When someone says something about me, they usually refer to my thoughts, emotions, body, profession, family, nationality, etc.It follows that your emotions, thoughts, and inner world are not you. — creativesoul
The idea is to determine what about me is enduring (or, at least, relatively enduring). Thoughts and emotions change in a second. The body changes slower but changes nonetheless. Awareness seems to be the only possible candidate for an enduring, relatively unchanging self.A human is so much more than that. Being aware is so passive. — Banno
I have the eclectic attitude that if something is true, then it's true regardless of context. If natives believe the bark of a certain tree can cure headaches and have folk beliefs about why the tree does so, that doesn't prevent scientists from extracting the active ingredient and synthesizing it as aspirin.Because in their original context such doctrines and teachings were part of an integrated spiritual culture. — Wayfarer
It goes beyond what I've personally experience, too.This paragraph is a different topic, which I have no experience in, so I won't speculate. — Patterner
The fundamental question, I believe, is of personal identity. One view is that our physical, emotional, and mental sensations being temporary, don't constitute me in the deepest sense. Rather, the more permanent consciousness which is aware of the sensations constitutes my personal identity. Under this view, I (my awareness) would be re-experiencing the current life I'm experiencing.What I'm getting at is similar to the difference between watching a documentary and being a part of that documentary. I think that ambiguity may be built in to your speculation. The difference is in who is doing the "watching". If you go back and re-live a part of your life, will you be you, now, re-experiencing that life? If so, you are not re-experiencing, so much as watching from the outside. — Banno
I think the concepts of "soul" and "disembodied consciousness" are similar, if not exactly the same. Choosing to live a life is choosing to experience all that life's physical, emotional, and mental sensations. So, we are in a 3D movie where 3 refers to physical, emotional, and mental sensations. I think that idea is similar to the idea that we are living in a matrix.... it is the soul that gets reincarnated; that thoughts, feelings, the body are not the self. — baker
Very interesting question. First, it's important to clarify that the initial argument about divine hiddenness was focused on its role in fostering human free will and moral growth during our earthly existence. The nature of heaven and its impact on free will and moral growth may be significantly different from the conditions on Earth. While divine hiddenness may no longer be present in heaven, it does not necessarily imply the loss of free will or the cessation of moral growth. — gevgala
OK, I'd agree about 100% certainty of my own awareness.Thank you for your reply "Art48." I am 100% certain that I am conscious. No infinite regress is involved with this. Did you watch the Robert Sapolsky video excerpt? If so, what do you think? — Truth Seeker
!LOLYeah, "nihilism" has been used as a boogeyman for a long while now. It's like the Reefer Madness of philosophy. — wonderer1
If I really do cease to exist when I die, then I’ll never know it. If I cease to exist, there’s nothing left to know I no longer exist. — Art48
The problem that introduces is nihilism. Nihilism doesn't have to present itself in a very dramatic form, like a deep sense of foreboding or dread. It can simply manifest as the sense that nothing really matters. So if death nullifies or negates any differences between what beings do in life, that amounts to a form of nihilism — Quixodian
I'd say that a person's personal Jesus incorporates some of the religious community's picture of Jesus.I suspect that there's a third Jesus - that of the religious community a person belongs to. Often based on a priest's or preacher's version. Many followers are too 'frightened' to formulate their own notions and surrender to the account of a compelling and authoritative apologist or cleric. — Tom Storm
Would you agree that the idea that personal Jesus is a mask implies that at least some of personal Jesus' characteristics must be inaccurate and, thus, should be negated? (Negated in the sense that a person ceases to believe those characteristics apply to the God behind the mask?This is why any authentic spirituality, I contend, must necessarily be apophatic - the way of negation, the cloud of unknowing. — Quixodian
Regarding Kant, Schopenhauer noted that since we are a thing-in-itself, it should be possible to directly experience at least one thing-in-itself, i.e., our own existence. If God is our ultimate ground of existence (per Vedanta, Ekhart, & other mystics), we are capable of experiencing the God-behind-all-masks.The problem with God-behind-all-masks is the classic problem with Kant's reality-behind-all-appearence. — plaque flag
But some perspectives can be false, as when we see a mirage and think we are seeing water. If God is ultimate ground of all existence, then I agree that God is already something we are looking at. But most of the time, we don't see God. Rather, we see people and places and things.I suggest that appearance should not be understood as a blanket thrown over reality but simply as that reality from a perspective. Consciousness is not illusion or screen but the being of the world itself. Along these lines, God is already something we are looking it from different perspectives. — plaque flag
A state where embarrassment, prejudice, bias, shame, guilt, hatred and resentment are no where to be seen. Because these all depend on having a sense of self consciousness, a sense of discrete and defined relationship to the external world. — Benj96
I agree. If someone believes God always answers prayers but that sometimes the answer is "No" then there is no way to tell if prayer works or not.There is no counter-evidence. The truth is there is no way to know if a particular outcome is from God, it could simply be chance or even deterministic. — Sam26
Here's something to think about. Try to pinpoint the present, the exact point in time, which divides the future from past. Every time you say "now', by the time you say "now" it is in the past. — Metaphysician Undercover
I wrote,if God exists. The point being if we are only really in the present (not the past or the future), then if God is real, our only point of contact where we could possibly meet is the present.And what's any of it to do with God? — Vera Mont
We can see consciousness remains when the objects of consciousness change. I have a thought, then experience an emotion, then see a tree, then hear a song, then another thought. The contents change but consciousness remains. So, (for me, at least) it's easy to believe consciousness without content is possible. And, as TheMadMan points out, consciousness without content (i.e., pure consciousness) is a goal of meditation.Can you have consciousness without any content? — frank
For me boredom is worse. And personally I think boredom is closer to depression than sadness is. Because people can feel acutely and strongly upset regularly, but would not consider themselves depressed. They might consider themselves emotionally labile, dramatic, sensitive. But not depressed.
I could well imagine a chronically bored person on the other hand saying things like everything is pointless and futile. Worthless. Meaningless. — Benj96
I don't think they are now. Not sure about the future.Do you think computer's are conscious? — wonderer1
You seem to say "consciousness" is a bad word for describing brain activity. If we limit consciousness to biological activity, that would imply a computer (or other silicon-based, non-biological entity) could never become consciousness. Would you agree?Consciousness is simply a bad word as it has come to build in a set of wrong beliefs about the architecture of mind. — apokrisis
I'd say that the brain being receptive implies consciousnessThe objection would presumably be that the brain remains receptive to some stimuli — bert1
It is consistent.My own current view is that consciousness is always present, but psychological identity perhaps isn't. During deep sleep there are no memories, values, desires etc. The patient ceases to exist as a psychological entity. That might be consistent with your second point — bert1
I'm using "consciousness" in a broad way, as something that perceives, something which is aware. Under that (admittedly broad) definition, a subconscious process would be a form of awareness, i.e., consciousness.Why think consciousness is required to be awakened from deep sleep by a noise, rather than a subconscious process monitoring input from the ears and starting a subconscious arousal process? — wonderer1
Another person is not contained in my awareness. So, that person can be in pain or even deceased and I might not know it. But if soul is part of me, then if I can be aware of my soul it must intersect with my awareness. If soul and consciousness do not intersect, then I cannot be aware of my soul so why should I care about what is happening to it?I don't see why? I am aware of you, but you are not contained in my awareness. — unenlightened