|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2008 12:32:08 AM · #1476 |
Originally posted by chalice:
What is so troubling for those with a scientific stake in the ground to admit that "mind" "self-awareness" or "soul" admit to the mere possibility that the set of all possible answers to cosmic questions includes a subset of intelligent or intentional or directed happenings. |
You're mistaking critical thinking for evasion. Some statements are meaningless, including phrases like "cosmic questions". In my view, these are simply obfuscating devices, and serve only as distractions that take away from any kind of meaningful, insightful discourse.
In short, it isn't troubling. It's simply hocus-pocus. It's supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. It's a caveman explaining away thunder and lightning with myths about a man living on a mountain, in lieu of empirical scientific data. If you can't explain it today, mythologize, romanticize, dogmatize.
Message edited by author 2008-04-01 00:34:12. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:34:59 AM · #1477 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To make sure we are clear, I'm talking about the ability to choose different courses of actions with the exact same input. To cross the street or not to cross the street. |
Correct. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:36:17 AM · #1478 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To make sure we are clear, I'm talking about the ability to choose different courses of actions with the exact same input. To cross the street or not to cross the street. |
Correct. |
And to be clear again, are you supposing this is within the realm of materialism? |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:43:46 AM · #1479 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And to be clear again, are you supposing this is within the realm of materialism? |
I'm saying these attributes have physical and chemical explanations. If emotion were not determined by chemistry, then Prozac would have no effect. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:45:03 AM · #1480 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And to be clear again, are you supposing this is within the realm of materialism? |
I'm saying these attributes have physical and chemical explanations. If emotion were not determined by chemistry, then Prozac would have no effect. |
Don't change the subject. I'm not talking about emotion. I'm talking about free will. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:50:45 AM · #1481 |
| The subject included complex reasoning, self-awareness, morality and emotion. Regardless, free will can be affected by various drugs too, so the same principle applies. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:51:19 AM · #1482 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And to be clear again, are you supposing this is within the realm of materialism? |
I'm saying these attributes have physical and chemical explanations. If emotion were not determined by chemistry, then Prozac would have no effect. |
Don't change the subject. I'm not talking about emotion. I'm talking about free will. |
Didn't we do this about 6 months ago ? Couldn't we all just read the wikipedia page again, rather than dance elaborate dances around all the well worn 'traps' in the various opinions on free will that have been debated for millenia ? Not to say you shouldn't talk about it, but maybe we could skip the preliminary flirting and get to the dance ? Hint: it requires free will, otherwise you are all just repeating the same responses to the same stimulus...
Message edited by author 2008-04-01 00:52:09. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:55:14 AM · #1483 |
Yes, we've had this conversation before and I believe somewhere back three hundred posts ago Shannon agreed that likely Free Will is an illusion (I'm assuming he said this because he agreed it was not something that can exist within the frame of materialism).
I'm bringing it up again because Chalice mentioned it and may not have been hip to Shannon already conceding his point... ;) |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 01:18:10 AM · #1484 |
Well, Shannon is off the hook for the moment because I can't find the quote. I even looked on the other thread.
The reason these arguments keep coming back up is because you guys never concede a single point. If you are cornered you just change the subject (like Shannon tried to do above inserting "emotion" for "free will"). So I never ever ever hear Shannon say how he really feels about free will (well, I thought I did, but I can't find the post).
So point blank Shannon, just answer the question. It won't hurt. I promise.
Which do you feel is closest to your position:
1) Free will does not exist. Our belief in our own free will is illusory.
2) Free will does exist. It can exist within the framework of a material universe.
3) Free will does exist. It can only exist within a dualistic universe.
Pleeeeaaassseeee....just answer it. :)
Message edited by author 2008-04-01 01:18:59. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 03:47:21 AM · #1485 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by chalice:
What is so troubling for those with a scientific stake in the ground to admit that "mind" "self-awareness" or "soul" admit to the mere possibility that the set of all possible answers to cosmic questions includes a subset of intelligent or intentional or directed happenings. |
You're mistaking critical thinking for evasion. Some statements are meaningless, including phrases like "cosmic questions". In my view, these are simply obfuscating devices, and serve only as distractions that take away from any kind of meaningful, insightful discourse.
In short, it isn't troubling. It's simply hocus-pocus. It's supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. It's a caveman explaining away thunder and lightning with myths about a man living on a mountain, in lieu of empirical scientific data. If you can't explain it today, mythologize, romanticize, dogmatize. |
O.K. I'll change my wording. What is so troubling for those with a scientific stake in the ground to admit that "mind" "self-awareness" or "soul" admit to a mere possibility that the set of all possible answers to the origin of the universe and/or precursor to the big bang (if there is a precurser rather than a boundary or loop) includes intelligence, intent or directed happenings?
There are plenty of scientists who are legitimately willing to consider the possibility, however remote or improbable. Why is it that DrAchoo has to lament that "you guys never concede a single point"? If there is no genuine give and take then there is really no "insightful discourse". And please note, that I have no quarrel with science, nor even with evolution. I have read a fair number of scientific books (and I am pleased to say that none of them are written by so-called Creationist scientists, nor are they written by the equally dogmatic Mr. Dawkins). There are plenty of intelligent, insightful scientists and theologians to read without bothering with those that are shouting so loud. Men like Hawkings, Hale, Davis, and the like make for more balanced reading and inquiry. Nor (as long as I am going on the record) am I associated with the more conservative wings of organized religion. (...and not that I think that they and the creationist scientists and Mr. Dawkins don't have a right to their place in the sun. I just don't choose to go that route.)
Now, in my humble opinion, Scalvert came the closest answering my questions with his collection of interesting newspaper articles. But even here, with as much promise as those recent experiments portend and as interesting as those experiments are, the articles do address the ideas of self-awareness, morality, and the like, but don't exactly deal with the underlying issue of what actually represents the set of possible precursers to the big bang (again, if there are any precursers).
I tried to approach the subject of the set of all possible precursers to the big bang by using music and dance, funerals and crying as jumping off points. Perhaps there is nothing more to these than the "mystery [of] the complexity of neurons and brain architecture". That makes music and dance rather pedantic. And by extension, we as photographers are not really dealing with esoteric concepts of art so much as demonstrating our cranial architecture. Perhaps the next time we vote in a challenge we should simply state that to the best of our individual neural capacities, respectively, we give the photo an 8 because of superior use of extensive brain architecture. (...tongue planted semi-permanently in side of cheek). I don't doubt that cerebral development has a vital role to play in music, art, dance, photography, and the like. But I don't think that is a complete answer.
When I read comments of Louis eloquently explaining one of his photographs  (click on the photo to read his comments) and the meaning it holds for him I don't see a whole lot of science going on. I see an intelligence with a great deal of talent expressing complex ideas in an artistic way. Now it may be that this is nothing more than complex neural capacity at work. But I beg to differ. I am sure I can go to each of your sites and select images and comments to illustrate the same thing. I chose Louis because he and I have been in a critique group in the past and I have more knowledge of his abilities, and I think (and hope) that he realizes that my remarks are not in any way personal. (Incidentally, speaking of photographic abilities I would be happy to trade neurons with any of you as I have checked out your work and it is uniformly superb).
Now before I end this post, I have to say something more. I am aware that I have not offered up authority or citations for some of my observations. That is for two reasons. (1) At 57 years of age, I've been around the block enough times in threads like this one to know that for every authority or citation or example I offer up, one of the "fierce four" as DrAchoo would say (I'm not sure who the four are, by the way), will refute it with an equal and opposite authority or citation or example, or will simply sidestep it as "not science" or "muddle-headed thinking" or some such other response. While I am willing to take a "pummeling" as someone said (the jackal and antelope hyperbole may be a bit over the top) it ultimately serves no purpose to go in that direction if there is no willingness to admit even the possibility of the precursors I've mentioned above. I'm even willing to stipulate that my attempts at raising such authority, citations or examples would be feeble in comparison to your more practiced abilities when it comes to handing out a verbal pummeling based upon scientific arguments and counterarguments. (2) I am, like most of us, very busy and can't really afford the time to respond (since I am so wordy) if there is no basis on which to have even a rudimentary common point of departure. As Gordon would say "...rather than dance elaborate dances around all the well worn 'traps'", I would rather critique your excellent photos than your excellent science. I might even find it more profitable to read the first 58 pages of this thread (where I would learn who Shannon is) than to add my contribution to it, given the state of things. I've only been here two days, so please forgive me (or exercise whatever neural responses are necessary to let it slide) if I have dredged up things that were already hashed out.
I guess, it all comes down to saying that I am willing to participate if there is a worthwhile reason other than the sport of it. And whether I continue or go back to photography, I sincerely respect the integrity of your respective viewpoints, no matter how imperfect my arguments may have been phrased.
So I'll ask once more. Is there a basis in your view to admitting that intelligence, intent or directed happenings in the context of the origins of the universe (and the big bang theory) are a possible subset of the set of causes (if in fact there are causes) of those origins? Or is such a notion beyond serious consideration in your view. (Note, I am not asking if it is theoretically possible for Unicorns, small "g" gods, or similar entities to have created the universe by stretching the word "possible" to include a near infinite set of causes. I am asking for a serious response in the context of a thread entitled "The Co-existence of Science and Theology" and I am willing to live with your answers.
(PS: Sorry if this and other posts are so late arriving. I live in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, six time zones after the east coast so you may frequently get a response from me when you wake up the following day. I also won't be very timely when you are likely hard at it, because I will still be at work during the shank of your respective evenings.)
edited to correct spelling
Message edited by author 2008-04-01 03:56:13. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:40:52 AM · #1486 |
| Duh. I just figured out who Shannon is. I have to read the personal pages a little closer rather than just use the handles. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 08:49:57 AM · #1487 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Which do you feel is closest to your position:
1) Free will does not exist. Our belief in our own free will is illusory.
2) Free will does exist. It can exist within the framework of a material universe.
3) Free will does exist. It can only exist within a dualistic universe.
Pleeeeaaassseeee....just answer it. :) |
I think I answered this one before. I don't know. Do you ?
I do however have a hard time with this model:
basic chemistry, fundamental biology, neurons firing, logical clouds of connected neurons free will and consciousness
If you replace with then you are closer to my point of view.
Similar to most of these arguments, which often appear to be:
1/ theory A about x
2/ belief B about x
3/ theory A doesn't explain everything, therefore belief B must be correct
Similar to the various creationist ideas that are 'well evolution doesn't seem to yet explain all this complexity' and how it got here, so I'm going to believe that an infinitely complex being just made it all happen.
Personally, I'm more amazed and awed that it could all happen at all, without having to assume something made it happen. I find it more potentially inspiring that things like mathematics and physics might well actually explain all the processes, without the need for . But that's probably because I've got 3 engineering degrees and earn my money by picking holes in logical fallacies & finding root causes when everyone else waves their hands and assumed .
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 09:57:16 AM · #1488 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, Shannon is off the hook for the moment because I can't find the quote. |
That's because you made it up.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Which do you feel is closest to your position:
1) Free will does not exist. Our belief in our own free will is illusory.
2) Free will does exist. It can exist within the framework of a material universe.
3) Free will does exist. It can only exist within a dualistic universe. |
1 AND 2. Free will exists as a personal experience, resulting from complex electrochemical reactions in your brain- a real thing, but effectively an illusion of perception. Gorillas can appreciate a sunset, rats will forego food to stop the suffering of a fellow rat, and capuchin monkeys will refuse treats if they view a situation as unfair. Such behavior is fully consistent with the idea that many animals are capable of making conscious decisions and humans hold no monopoly on free will. Furthermore, the simple observation that a person's judgement can be altered by drugs or alcohol should be ample evidence that perception is tied to brain chemistry. A court judge, sworn in on the bible, will send someone exhibiting a pattern of dangerously irrational judgement to a mental hospital for treatment, not a church.
Originally posted by chalice:
What is so troubling for those with a scientific stake in the ground to admit that... the set of all possible answers to cosmic questions includes a subset of intelligent or intentional or directed happenings. |
Such a proposal makes no logical sense. It's self-contradictory. It dismisses the notion that the universe could have always existed in some form as an utter impossibility, yet claims that it must be the product of something that always existed in some form. One wonders how a proponent of intelligent design can reconcile the natural existence of a being complex enough to know how to manufacture a universe that's too complex to simply exist naturally. So not only does this solution require the very things proponents claim are impossible, but also extra dimensions, the suspension of physical laws, omnipotence, magic & miracles, a perfect being with imperfect handiwork AND an interpretive book of rules written by ancient unknown authors in a foreign language that marginalizes those who disagree. Gee, what's so troubling about that? |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 10:46:26 AM · #1489 |
Originally posted by chalice:
What is so troubling for those with a scientific stake in the ground to admit that "mind" "self-awareness" or "soul" admit to a mere possibility that the set of all possible answers to the origin of the universe ... includes intelligence, intent or directed happenings? |
It isn't troubling. It's simply a non-starter. Why should I admit to something that, after processing all the observed data, makes absolutely no sense, and is the least likely explanation for the origin of the universe? Shannon adequately explains the kind of chicken-and-the-egg problem we've gone over before, and that's just one part of the problem.
As for anyone who asks, "Why are you not willing to move your position to concede a point?" Well, I could easily ask the same of you. A position would hardly be a position if it moved around a lot. By its definition, a position of opinion must be argued in situ. I don't think I or anyone else would be very credible if we conceded strongly held positions that others find obstacles to the advancement of further arguments they want to make.
Originally posted by chalice:
I have read a fair number of scientific books (and I am pleased to say that none of them are written by so-called Creationist scientists, nor are they written by the equally dogmatic Mr. Dawkins). |
That's too bad. You do know that Richard Dawkins is the world's preeminent evolutionary scientist, don't you? That he has written a number of books that are cornerstones in the fields of evolutionary and genetic study? I find it interesting that you would dismiss whole sections of disciplines based on personal bias. That seems like intellectual cheating. (But only cheating yourself.)
Because one feels does not imply the existence of a god that created the universe, for all the reasons already cited. Dawkins covers some of this in "The God Delusion" in relation to morality and altruism. It can be equally applied to sentiment.
I post this link often now, mostly when someone appears to get offended, or appears afraid of causing offense, in the course of a conversation about ideas that have nothing to do with personalities. It's a long read, but talks about differences between people when they try to converse with one another (mostly Europeans vs. Americans), and how mystifying it can be when a conversation about ideas is interpreted as a kind of personal attack. I've been here for two years, and I've gotten plenty of PMs along the lines of, "I hope I haven't offended you," "Please understand that I just feel very strongly," and the like, as well as, "You're a pudding-eating jerk," "Go sit in a pot of gravy, pea-head," and so on. Both styles are head-scratchers. I am not likely to get offended at a contrary position, and a challenge of someone's ideas is not a personal attack. Here's the link. Start at "Getting Overheated" if you want to skip ahead. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 10:49:36 AM · #1490 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Alternatively if you read this report on the same story, on your reasoning it would be proof for the existence of aliens. |
That's not what I read. I read that one previously had drawn that conclusion, however since the latest deciphering, using computers to recreate the astrology/astronomy of the depicted times, determined that an explaination (theory) was consistent with a asteroid. (Just like another example I presented earlier regarding the "star" of Jesus, whereby computers were used to recreate astrology/astronomy representations that also explained another biblical story - and making Christ's birth more likely in/around 7BC).
My points in these examples are merely to acknowledge the use of science (archeology/astromony) to give credibility to historical accounts used as the basis for biblical stories. Unlike some "believers" I do not, nor have I claimed that every single translated word in scripture in the literal word of GOD. However, I cannot let you or any poster here infer that the Bible is mere conjecture (in its totality) and without any proof for any written account, when to me, there is ample evidence in scienctific disciplines (namely archeology) that demonstrate elements of historical accounts, and these accounts have a basis in actual events. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 10:55:19 AM · #1491 |
PHOEBE: Uh-oh. It's Scary Scientist Man.
ROSS: Ok, Phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.
PHOEBE: Ok, look, before you even start, I'm not denying evolution, ok, I'm just saying that it's one of the possibilities.
ROSS: It's the only possibility, Phoebe.
PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?
ROSS: There might be, a teeny, tiny, possibility.
PHOEBE: I can't believe you caved.
ROSS: What?
PHOEBE: You just abandoned your whole belief system. I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. How, how, how are you going to go into work tomorrow? How, how are you going to face the other science guys? How, how are you going to face yourself? Oh! That was fun. So who's hungry? |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 10:59:09 AM · #1492 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Alternatively if you read this report on the same story, on your reasoning it would be proof for the existence of aliens. |
That's not what I read. I read that one previously had drawn that conclusion, however since the latest deciphering, using computers to recreate the astrology/astronomy of the depicted times, determined that an explaination (theory) was consistent with a asteroid. (Just like another example I presented earlier regarding the "star" of Jesus, whereby computers were used to recreate astrology/astronomy representations that also explained another biblical story - and making Christ's birth more likely in/around 7BC).
My points in these examples are merely to acknowledge the use of science (archeology/astromony) to give credibility to historical accounts used as the basis for biblical stories. Unlike some "believers" I do not, nor have I claimed that every single translated word in scripture in the literal word of GOD. However, I cannot let you or any poster here infer that the Bible is mere conjecture (in its totality) and without any proof for any written account, when to me, there is ample evidence in scienctific disciplines (namely archeology) that demonstrate elements of historical accounts, and these accounts have a basis in actual events. |
I never really understand this line of reasoning. Do people really claim the entire bible was made up and not based on any historical facts ? Is that even relevant to if the important bits are true or not ?
I can watch 'Back to the Future' and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the DeLorean car existed. I could even find one in a scrap yard. It doesn't prove the rest of the story one way or another.
So, some of the people written about in the bible may have been alive. Some of the places that existed and were written about may well have been as described. Some of the normal events described may have happened.
DeLorean's once roamed the earth, too. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 11:23:06 AM · #1493 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So, some of the people written about in the bible may have been alive. Some of the places that existed and were written about may well have been as described. Some of the normal events described may have happened.
|
So what do you personally make about the whole Jesus character Gordon?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 11:26:36 AM · #1494 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Which do you feel is closest to your position:
1) Free will does not exist. Our belief in our own free will is illusory.
2) Free will does exist. It can exist within the framework of a material universe.
3) Free will does exist. It can only exist within a dualistic universe. |
1 AND 2. Free will exists as a personal experience, resulting from complex electrochemical reactions in your brain- a real thing, but effectively an illusion of perception. Gorillas can appreciate a sunset, rats will forego food to stop the suffering of a fellow rat, and capuchin monkeys will refuse treats if they view a situation as unfair. Such behavior is fully consistent with the idea that many animals are capable of making conscious decisions and humans hold no monopoly on free will. Furthermore, the simple observation that a person's judgement can be altered by drugs or alcohol should be ample evidence that perception is tied to brain chemistry. A court judge, sworn in on the bible, will send someone exhibiting a pattern of dangerously irrational judgement to a mental hospital for treatment, not a church. |
Well thanks for the, uh, fairly straightforward answer. I will point out that you indicate that Free Will both exists and doesn't exist. I'm guess by your statement that you mean the illusion or feeling of free will exists while actual free agency doesn't. We are, in reality, no more than very, very complex machines and if someone was smart enough to know how we were put together exactly they could predict what the "program" was going to do at any point. Is that fair?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 01:47:33 PM · #1495 |
| Thank you, all, for your responses. I'll get back to them later today, but I have to get to work now and have had only enough time to read them. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 01:47:53 PM · #1496 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well thanks for the, uh, fairly straightforward answer. I will point out that you indicate that Free Will both exists and doesn't exist. I'm guess by your statement that you mean the illusion or feeling of free will exists while actual free agency doesn't. |
UFOs exist, because we perceive things that we don't understand, but that doesn't mean aliens are traveling trillions of miles to draw pretty pictures in a cornfield in Wichita. Phantom pains exist, but that doesn't mean a severed limb is still attached. Perception is a funny thing. We perceive that we view the world as a "spirit" looking out through the window of our eyes and senses, with the romantic idea that this sense of "self" is a separate, non-physical entity carrying memories and feelings. It's somehow discomforting to think of sight as a brain processing wavelengths of light striking our photosensitive retinas, but that's what it is, and if you damage that all-too-physical hard drive in your skull, those stored memories and feelings can go bye-bye permanently.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We are, in reality, no more than very, very complex machines and if someone was smart enough to know how we were put together exactly they could predict what the "program" was going to do at any point. Is that fair? |
In principle, perhaps, but the complexity involved is staggering. I mean we know the basic structure and mechanisms of a hurricane, but are still a long way off from predicting what that "machine" will do at any point. Does that imply that hurricanes have a spirit or free will? Now imagine trying to predict a hurricane whose actions are determined not just by current physical form and environmental conditions, but also by years of past experiences, accumulated knowledge and sensory inputs. One bad experience with tainted water and this hurricane might react very differently from an otherwise physically identical clone. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 02:35:59 PM · #1497 |
OK, I understand how you feel. I agree the complexity is far beyond where we are and probably where we will ever be. What do you make of the follow up question to that? If the reality is free will is merely a perception and we are "trapped" in our physical bodies doomed to make choices dictated by our atoms then how can we trust anything our senses tell us? If we are incorrect about ourselves (and not just minorly incorrect, we ALL, in truth, lives our lives as if we truly have free will. Our language, for example, has words and ideas that make very little sense in a fatalistic world but are used every day.) how can we hope to know anything?
Do you just ignore it? or is there an answer to that problem?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 02:36:21 PM · #1498 |
Where's Louis? Did he come up with that Dawkins quote yet?
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 02:50:22 PM · #1499 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...how can we trust anything our senses tell us? |
How can you trust what you see when your sight is dictated by photons striking your retina , chemical reactions causing neurons to fire along your optic nerve, and other chemical reactions allowing your brain to perceive an image. Isn't that what actually happens? You trust what you see because experience tells you it's real. Some people CAN'T trust their senses (schizophrenia). |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 03:00:16 PM · #1500 |
| I didn't know I had homework. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 10:15:51 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 10:15:51 PM EDT.
|
