RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it....

RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/14/2016 8:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar In short, the article seems to imply that we're tricked into perceiving ourselves to have free will/consciousness because when we believe that this is the case, we work better together with others. What are we to make of claims against free will which, by definition, have not been freely considered and are not being freely advanced? quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar However, considering that the studies also indicate that believe in free will in and of itself influences behavior, it also begs the question whether it really matters if we're truly conscious or not, because merely believing that we are seems to put us in a position where we'll have the perception of having more desirable/more divers options available to us. If I am not conscious..... then who, precisely, is believing that I am? K.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/14/2016 9:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar In short, the article seems to imply that we're tricked into perceiving ourselves to have free will/consciousness because when we believe that this is the case, we work better together with others. What are we to make of claims against free will which, by definition, have not been freely considered and are not being freely advanced? quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar However, considering that the studies also indicate that believe in free will in and of itself influences behavior, it also begs the question whether it really matters if we're truly conscious or not, because merely believing that we are seems to put us in a position where we'll have the perception of having more desirable/more divers options available to us. If I am not conscious..... then who, precisely, is believing that I am? K. I'm not arguing you're not. I'm merely relaying an article that claims you're not because I thought Kaliko would find it interesting. [:)]

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/15/2016 9:48:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Ah... he is only world renowned theoretical physicist ...how could I use him as an example...especially when we have you to correct him...[:D] Butch That's what's so great about science. Everybody and every idea is open to reasonable criticism. It seems that subatomic particles are surrounded by force fields which complicate the idea.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/15/2016 9:52:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: I mean cows and horses have brains and they are not "just like us," are they? Sure they are. quote: But I will stand by the brain thingy until you show me an alternative. I already did, but you pretended I didn't make those posts. Sorry. Point out a post number and I will return to it.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/15/2016 10:19:03 AM)
UllrsIshtar quote: Whether you then want to argue that it's molecules, or past experiences which shape our current behavior is just a matter of how far down the causal chain you want to go. No. I was referring to past experiences of the individual within her lifetime and in some cases due to environmental influences on the parents. Not at all talking about behavior as a product of the long chain of evolution. Molecules do not carry memory AFAIK. Sorry I was not more clear in writing.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/15/2016 1:15:20 PM)
On Nagel from wiki: quote: In his Mind and Cosmos (2012), Nagel argues against a materialist view of the emergence of life and consciousness, writing that the standard neo-Darwinian view flies in the face of common sense.[9] He argues that the principles that account for the emergence of life may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic.[10] Nagel is an atheist and not a proponent of intelligent design (ID), though The New York Times reported that the book was "praised by creationists."[ Well good for Nagel. If he wants to believe in the teleological impulses of evolution, so be it. Seems ridiculous to me. But that is a different kettle of fish. I never opined about the evolution of consciousness as emergent. My comments were always confined to the emergence of consciousness in the individual organism. You never properly addressed that topic. Evolution? Not my topic in this thread. And apparently not clearly stated as yours in the OP. Look here in your OP: quote: We cannot explain how or why an assemblage of insentient material could or would have any subjective internal experience at all, let alone a rich emotional life and a sense of self. What is there in that sentence that even hints at evolution? Not a thing. Now look at this one from the OP: quote: The idea that consciousness is an emergent quality of sufficiently complex systems begs the question. We have no idea how insentient chemicals could possibly develop a conscious awareness of their existence in the first place. There might be a smidge of implication of evolutionary thinking in that sentence but it is really cloudy. You might be using the word emergent to mean from one life form to another, as a synonym for evolution. I have never seen it used as such.

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/15/2016 1:20:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML UllrsIshtar quote: Whether you then want to argue that it's molecules, or past experiences which shape our current behavior is just a matter of how far down the causal chain you want to go. No. I was referring to past experiences of the individual within her lifetime and in some cases due to environmental influences on the parents. Not at all talking about behavior as a product of the long chain of evolution. Molecules do not carry memory AFAIK. Sorry I was not more clear in writing. Sigh... same damn thing... Your parents were influenced by their parents who were influenced by their parents, etc. But that behavior started at some point, right? If not, and if it was at some point caused by spontaneous action then it would be ludicrous to now claim that we are no longer able of spontaneous action because we're being influenced by the experiences before us. That very first behavior, or the first animal, who in turn influenced all the others in the causal chain, was influenced by the multi cell organism it came from, back all the way to atoms bumping into each other a certain way causing it all. If you believe in determinism, then the inescapable conclusion is that everything we do was inevitable since the big bang. If you believe that it's not, then there is -at some point- room for spontaneous action, in which case it because silly to argue that we now don't have free will, but somebody, somewhere did, and they started a causal chain that's now making it impossible for us to choose to do anything other than what we do.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/15/2016 3:11:37 PM)
quote: Sorry. Point out a post number and I will return to it. Feel free to browse for them, your opinion is not worth enough to me to be worth making the required clicks.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/15/2016 4:03:05 PM)
quote: That very first behavior, or the first animal, who in turn influenced all the others in the causal chain, was influenced by the multi cell organism it came from, back all the way to atoms bumping into each other a certain way causing it all. I certainly don't believe in your interpretation of determinism. The notion that behavior is inherited the way you suggest doesn't in the remotest way fit the neo-Darwinian narrative that is commonly accepted today.

Charles6682 -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/15/2016 10:39:33 PM)
I consider myself to be Spiritual but not religious. I am not anti-religious nor am I am pro-religion. People who practice their religion in peace, not harming others, is fine. However, when Organized Religion and dogma start telling people to harm others, hate others and judges others, then that is where Freedom of Religion ends. Hating others and hiding behind religion is for gutless cowards. I am tried of all the violence that has been caused by religion. I don't care what religion it is. No loving God, no matter what you call Him/Her/It, would tell anyone to harm anyone. For all the good people of religion who do great things, like love others and helping other, I admire that. Some of the nicest people are of religion. They help others, feed the poor, etc. Love is the answer, period. Many religions teach this. Some of the greatest Spiritual leaders of all time have taught that love is the answer. Its not the complicated.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/16/2016 7:50:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles6682 I consider myself to be Spiritual but not religious. I am not anti-religious nor am I am pro-religion. People who practice their religion in peace, not harming others, is fine. However, when Organized Religion and dogma start telling people to harm others, hate others and judges others, then that is where Freedom of Religion ends. Hating others and hiding behind religion is for gutless cowards. I am tried of all the violence that has been caused by religion. I don't care what religion it is. No loving God, no matter what you call Him/Her/It, would tell anyone to harm anyone. For all the good people of religion who do great things, like love others and helping other, I admire that. Some of the nicest people are of religion. They help others, feed the poor, etc. Love is the answer, period. Many religions teach this. Some of the greatest Spiritual leaders of all time have taught that love is the answer. Its not the complicated. Let's leave religion out of it. K.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/16/2016 8:01:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar If you believe in determinism, then the inescapable conclusion is that everything we do was inevitable since the big bang. If you believe that it's not, then there is -at some point- room for spontaneous action, in which case it because silly to argue that we now don't have free will, but somebody, somewhere did, and they started a causal chain that's now making it impossible for us to choose to do anything other than what we do. Give him one free miracle and he'll explain the rest. [:D] K.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/16/2016 8:25:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar If you believe in determinism, then the inescapable conclusion is that everything we do was inevitable since the big bang. If you believe that it's not, then there is -at some point- room for spontaneous action, in which case it because silly to argue that we now don't have free will, but somebody, somewhere did, and they started a causal chain that's now making it impossible for us to choose to do anything other than what we do. Give him one free miracle and he'll explain the rest. [:D] K. Your comments are becoming more lame, K. [:D] UllrsIshtar's determinism not only fails to fit the neo-Darwinian narrative of evolution it also fails examination by common sense. If all human behavior arose from a single template we would all pretty much behave the same and make the same human choices. Obviously, we don't.

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/16/2016 8:58:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML UllrsIshtar's determinism not only fails to fit the neo-Darwinian narrative of evolution it also fails examination by common sense. If all human behavior arose from a single template we would all pretty much behave the same and make the same human choices. Obviously, we don't. The only person talking about evolution is you, and nobody ever said or even implied that determinism would result in all human behavior being rubber-stamped from the same template. [image]http://goldenwordsofself.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/quixotic.tilt-at-the-windmills_0.gif[/image] K.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/16/2016 10:11:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML UllrsIshtar's determinism not only fails to fit the neo-Darwinian narrative of evolution it also fails examination by common sense. If all human behavior arose from a single template we would all pretty much behave the same and make the same human choices. Obviously, we don't. The only person talking about evolution is you, and nobody ever said or even implied that determinism would result in all human behavior being rubber-stamped from the same template. [image]http://goldenwordsofself.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/quixotic.tilt-at-the-windmills_0.gif[/image] K. Much improved sarcasm, K. I knew I merited something more creative than your previous lame attempts [:D] quote: UllrsIshtar: Your parents were influenced by their parents who were influenced by their parents, etc. I never said that nor implied it. UllrsIshtar expanded and distorted what I said. quote: UllrsIshtar: That very first behavior, or the first animal, who in turn influenced all the others in the causal chain, was influenced by the multi cell organism it came from, back all the way to atoms bumping into each other a certain way causing it all. That is certainly a statement of evolution albeit absurd and not one I ascribe to, so it is UllrsIshtar on the horse.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/16/2016 11:15:42 AM)
quote: The only person talking about evolution is you, So, yeah, again you're wrong. You did bring this guy into the thread and now you claim no one was talking about evolution. That's a tad weasely I think. quote: In his Mind and Cosmos (2012), Nagel argues against a materialist view of the emergence of life and consciousness, writing that the standard neo-Darwinian view flies in the face of common sense.[9] He argues that the principles that account for the emergence of life may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic

Kirata -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/16/2016 11:37:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The only person talking about evolution is you, So, yeah, again you're wrong. You did bring this guy into the thread and now you claim no one was talking about evolution. That's a tad weasely I think. quote: In his Mind and Cosmos (2012), Nagel argues against a materialist view of the emergence of life and consciousness, writing that the standard neo-Darwinian view flies in the face of common sense.[9] He argues that the principles that account for the emergence of life may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic Try to focus on the screen instead of what your lamp-socket is telling you. "There are no truly emergent properties of complex systems. All properties of complex systems that are not relations between it and something else derive from the properties of its constituents and their effects on each other when so combined." ~link Nothing in that quote injects evolution into the discussion. K.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/16/2016 12:16:07 PM)
I think consciousness emerged because it wanted to.

vincentML -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/16/2016 1:52:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The only person talking about evolution is you, So, yeah, again you're wrong. You did bring this guy into the thread and now you claim no one was talking about evolution. That's a tad weasely I think. quote: In his Mind and Cosmos (2012), Nagel argues against a materialist view of the emergence of life and consciousness, writing that the standard neo-Darwinian view flies in the face of common sense.[9] He argues that the principles that account for the emergence of life may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic Try to focus on the screen instead of what your lamp-socket is telling you. "There are no truly emergent properties of complex systems. All properties of complex systems that are not relations between it and something else derive from the properties of its constituents and their effects on each other when so combined." ~link Nothing in that quote injects evolution into the discussion. K. Oh Hum . . . yawn. So, you repeat the statement again without context after telling me I should understand it within its context. That's typical of your game. Not surprising. So, taken without context the statement says nothing of interest. What sort of emergence is he talking about? Isolating a complex system from its environment and then saying everything within is interdependent is not very heavy thinking, is it? In all the comments I made about consciousness I was referring to the individual. Oh, and your ad hominem shit is turning limp dick again. tsk, tsk

kdsub -> RE: Let's try leaving religion out of it.... (6/16/2016 1:53:38 PM)
hmm I wonder if prions... viruses...bacteria...fungi are self aware? Are they alive ...do they no where they are? Are they sentient? Butch

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125