Originally posted by Bulgar
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Philosophy
Collapse
X
-
"To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch
"I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren
"I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally
"He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control
-
Originally posted by PraxusThinking presupposes an entity which is capable of thinking. Therefore something exists.
"There is nothing in existence but thinking makes it so."
It is indeed the act of thought itself, and the existence OF thought, that posits, or supposes, existence. When thought is gone, existence is gone.
Existence is the product of the minds cumulative process of interpreting, storing and recalling sensory data. When the mind is no longer performing that process, there is no longer existence.
Comment
-
THL... no pressure at all, my friend, but Im looking forward to a response to:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...0&postcount=56
;)
Comment
-
I am rubbing my hands in glee. This is a wonderful debate can't get excited enough about this.
There is bulgar that is Nihilistic.
There is me the Moral philosopher.
There is Praxus the Scientific intellect.
There Is lugh and THL the Buddhists.
And of course THL's wonderul insight.
We are going to have an absolute joy ride. And believe it or not I think Praxus and me have become the unlikely duo who are going to counter you all by proving the existence of free will. :)"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "
"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopHatsLiberalwhere does reincarnation fit in?
I would quote from the Bhagavad Gita on this but I am going to refrain.
Let me put it this way, the soul sheds the body and all other things gained through this body (wisdom, morals etc) and takes up a new physical self. Its like the process of the snake shedding its skin. There is no "you" in the physical self like we imagine. This is reincarnation.
Like lugh pointed out reincarnation doesn't involve "you". Therefore the term reincarnation in itself is paradoxical at best."Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "
"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Originally posted by LughHeh... therein lies one of the greatest challenges a mind can face.
There is no such thing as the "not-so-physical me". "Me" is a product of brain. When brain goes, "me" goes with it. You wont get another shot at this. "You" are an illusion, and so is "this".
(The only thing he knew was the he knew no-thing.)
Originally posted by LughBuddha attained enlightenment at the moment of pure clarity when he fully realized the utter completeness of transitory discursive reality. Samsara. Illusion. He let go of the last thread keeping him "sane", and attained Nirvana as a reward. He killed "himself", and began to truly BE.
Originally posted by LughThe concept of "reality" is crack, and we are all (almost) irreperably hooked. Fear is what keeps us hooked on this crack, and there are few who preach abstinence. Its not easy to be the only sober dude at a raging drunken party with 6 billion attendees."Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "
"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Bulgar I am going to have to hold you to answer this segment of our previous debate. It is very crucial that we do not jump this segment,
Originally posted by BulgaroctonusWhat can I say except that sometimes preservation of the self is overruled in some individuals. I'd say that the prime human motive is 'self-interest' not necessarily self-interest.
Self-interest can assume many forms, and it guides such behavior as dying in battle or responding to morality. For example, if I was to feed a starving child, it would only be to appease my annoying sense of pity. In other words, I commit moral acts in order to feel better, not because I can ever inherently care about someone else's welfare independent from my own.Furthermore, if I tried to control AIDS in Africa it would be for the purpose of containing the disease, or keeping enough cheap labor in Africa to fuel the economy. The success of the world economy, and my own safety from diseases benefit me, and thus the moral act can be traced back to self-interest.
Originally posted by MonkThats it!! I have you now. What did you say there, "self-interest" and "sometimes" and "not all times" the preservation of the self is important.
You have made two important admissions here:
1) The self. otherwise self-interest cannot take place.
2)The fundamental tenet of self preservation is acted against ergo "no will driven by chemical reactions", our will is at best directed by our conciousness which reacts to morality.
If it is against the fundamentals of logic as driven by the molecules which constitute you why would you react to pity? you shouldn't so what drives you to that act?Originally posted by BulgaroctonusSimilar to the soldier. He has been instilled with a sense of duty. The theoretical soldier's primary self-interest is to serve that duty. In this case, emotion may actually play a role. But this emotions is just another form of indoctrination.
Originally posted by MonkAgain "Self-interest". You are propounding the non-existent as per your nihlistic belief now.Originally posted by BulgaroctonusMorals are a kind of coping device, a way to keep the nihilistic beliefs away.
Originally posted by MonkHow so? Even an immoral person is aware of his "self", he has actually chosen immorality to be a more successful path, therefore disproving that he is nihilistic.
Originally posted by BulgaroctonusWith each passing day, my self becomes less apparent and real.
Originally posted by MonkRead the whole breadth of the debate here. You said morals are a way of keeping nihilistic beliefs away which i have disproved. Your reply to this is baffling. If you are an agreement then we have established that both moral and immoral persons are not nihlistic, therefore morality has nothing to do with nihilism."Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "
"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Originally posted by BulgaroctonusThis post is addressed mainly to Monk, the person I am most heavily debating against. However, I hope that everyone can gain from this summation of my ideas.
To all readers : Accept that the following statements are only my own beliefs. I try not to lie or mislead, but I may be incorrect about some things, despite my best efforts to understand the universe. I make this disclaimer because I don't feel like prefacing every statement with 'I think that," "It seems to me that," "I believe that," or any other number of moderating comments.
Originally posted by BulgaroctonusTo Monk specifically : We seem to be going in circles with the latest posts. I think it will be more efficient if I post the following ideas of my own. I will attempt to comment systematically on the issues we have been writing about. Take my assertions and match them against your own.
I hope the following statements will clarify my positions and eliminate some of my the apparent inconsistencies that have arisen.
Morality will also be discussed because I believe that morality rests upon the assertion that we have free will.
In the following free will post, I will:
1) Address the problem from a classical philosophical position
2) I will also try to pose some examples to aid my argument.
In my next post I will:
1) Write about the science of free will
2) Include the sentiments of prominent philosophers and scientists on free will.
3) Discuss the moral implications of no free will.
Originally posted by BulgaroctonusFREE WILL: Assertion: Free will is an impossibility and does not exist, hence humans do not possess it.
A. Definition: I will attempt to define the term 'free will' as best I can. The term's definition is still open to debate. I define free will as the ability to be the origin of one's own actions in terms of decision making. Free will holds that we are able to actually make choices that affect our future.
Originally posted by BulgaroctonusFrom the Routledge Encylopedia of Philosophy (http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014):
'Free will' is the conventional name of a topic that is best discussed without reference to the will. Its central questions are 'What is it to act (or choose) freely?', and 'What is it to be morally responsible for one's actions (or choices)?' These two questions are closely connected, for freedom of action is necessary for moral responsibility, even if it is not sufficient.
What is it to act (or choose) freely? and What is it to be morally responsible for one's actions (or choices)?
Originally posted by BulgaroctonusB. Discussion :
The main threats to our freedom of action can be grouped into a few different fields: science, causality (closely linked with science), psychology, and theology.
I will disregard theology because I am an athiest. I will also disregard psychology for the time being because I think that psychology is ultimately depedent on neurological factors that can be explained scientifically.
Originally posted by BulgaroctonusI. Causality and Classical Philosophical Objections to Free Will :
Classical Philosophy and its conceptions of causality form my first approach to the issue of free will. I will focus on the most elegant and powerful philosophical assertion against free will: Every event is determined completely by the events that precede it. Quantum mechanics has made this assertion questionable, but I save that for later.
The argument is very simple, and is not the only argument against free will. Every concievable event is determined past events. Therefore, no event can stand alone and determine itself. In the same way, no human can ever be the ultimate origin of action. They are instead a link in a causal chain. It oftens helps to pose examples, so here's one.
I throw a rock. Many people imagine that I threw this rock because I wanted to. That is, I am the origin of this action and throwing the rock was determined by 'me' (we will save deeper discussions of the 'self' for a later posting).
However, closer investigation reveals that the situation is very different.
At the time I threw the rock, I had a mental state that we will call 'A.' This mental state was characterized by the apparent desire to throw the rock. It makes sense that the mental state A (henceforth just 'A') was preceded by another mental state which we shall call A-1 (thats 'A minus 1' indicating a regression of time). After all, if A had no precedent (A-1), there would have been no mental state to form A (the desire to throw the rock). A-1 determined A because the content of A-1 leads directly to A. Of course, it is possible that a truly fundamental discussion of cause and effect is warranted. I hope you are all still with me and that I am being at least somewhat cogent.
This means that every mental state we have ever experienced, even if it appeared to be a 'decision making state' is determined by prior thoughts. When one keeps going back in time from A to A-1 to A-2 and so on, we realize that it results in a 'thought regression' to birth. Even more profoundly, the causal relationship extends beyond birth and arguably to the creation of the universe.
Imagine your mind as a river, with each individual thought represented as a town on the river. Any particular segment of the river cannot exist without the upstream portions. I live in a little town on the Delaware river called Titusville. When I look at the river, I perceive the causal link that the river represents. The river at Titusville cannot exist without the river at Lambertville, NJ (the next town up the Delaware.)
Similarly, I have reasoned that my current mental state cannot exist without those thoughts that preceded it. My previous thoughts were directly responsible for what I am thinking now. For this discussion's sake we shall treat thought as the root of action.
The logical route becomes: Every thought is determined by those thoughts preceding it. Thought determines action. Therefore all actions are determined by prior events. Roughly A=B, B=C, A=C."Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. "
"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."
Sir Winston Churchill
Comment
-
Originally posted by LughRight. I dont know if you are trying to defend my statement, but you did.
"There is nothing in existence but thinking makes it so."
It is indeed the act of thought itself, and the existence OF thought, that posits, or supposes, existence. When thought is gone, existence is gone.
Existence is the product of the minds cumulative process of interpreting, storing and recalling sensory data. When the mind is no longer performing that process, there is no longer existence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MonkThe question is whether there is more to you than "you the self" that is projected through the physical layers.
I would quote from the Bhagavad Gita on this but I am going to refrain.
Let me put it this way, the soul sheds the body and all other things gained through this body (wisdom, morals etc) and takes up a new physical self. Its like the process of the snake shedding its skin. There is no "you" in the physical self like we imagine. This is reincarnation.
Like lugh pointed out reincarnation doesn't involve "you". Therefore the term reincarnation in itself is paradoxical at best."To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch
"I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren
"I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally
"He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control
Comment
-
Originally posted by PraxusIn order for a mind to sense something, there must be something for it to sense. Just because the thing interprating what it senses dies does not make that which he sensed, disappear.
The only way a human has ever know there was something TO sense... is because they DID sense it, in one way or another.
Remove the senses and what do you have?
So far, there hasnt been a human who has removed their senses and confirmed that there is indeed still a world out there.
I guess this makes me more of a transcendentalist than a Buddhist, but those are kindred groups, right Monk?
;)
Comment
-
Originally posted by PraxusIt is impossible for you to know you lack free will. Why are you trying?
Oh that's right, it's not your fault, it's the reaction in your brain that leads you invariably to posting this. I'm not trying to be mean, it's just that your argument is self-refuting.
However, this solution is somewhat unsatisfactory because the status of evolution as applied to humans is still unknown, and we can't know if having a knowledge of advanced subjects like quantum mechanics confers any kind of evolutionary benefit. An even if it did, not evolutionary trial has come forth to test the efficacy of modern physical knowledge. That is, no people has yet been exterminated because they had a deranged or insufficient knowledge of physics (of course, Japan was defeated because of their lack of knowledge in WW2, but not exterminated).
Nonetheless, I am stuck in a kind of cosmic frustration, as I expressed some time ago to you.
I must put more thought into a resolution. This forum is forcing me to think very systematically and have been spending long nights attempting to structure my thoughts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by LughTHL... no pressure at all, my friend, but Im looking forward to a response to:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...0&postcount=56
;)Heh... therein lies one of the greatest challenges a mind can face.
There is no such thing as the "not-so-physical me". "Me" is a product of brain. When brain goes, "me" goes with it. You wont get another shot at this. "You" are an illusion, and so is "this".
(The only thing he knew was the he knew no-thing.)
Buddha attained enlightenment at the moment of pure clarity when he fully realized the utter completeness of transitory discursive reality. Samsara. Illusion. He let go of the last thread keeping him "sane", and attained Nirvana as a reward. He killed "himself", and began to truly BE.
The concept of "reality" is crack, and we are all (almost) irreperably hooked. Fear is what keeps us hooked on this crack, and there are few who preach abstinence. Its not easy to be the only sober dude at a raging drunken party with 6 billion attendees.
Please don't think I am ignoring you, I read this post last night and have been contemplating it. I am not sure, though, what kind of response you are seeking from me."To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch
"I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren
"I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally
"He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control
Comment
-
Originally posted by MonkDisagree [with definition].
Originally posted by MonkSo make your stand on these two questions Monsieur Bulgar s'il vous plait,
What is it to act (or choose) freely? and What is it to be morally responsible for one's actions (or choices)?
Originally posted by MonkAlright then I will choose morality to explain freewill.
I will comment on this more in a later post.
Originally posted by MonkMonsieur Bulgar I am going to ask you to review this stand you are taking since it is quite untenable on certain issues. Since your assertion about Action A being a time regressive quotient of Action A-1 will then inevitably lead to questions on "Quantum Entaglement". I am not a student of science but Praxus probably is and therefore you will have a tough time defending this stand. Monsieur Bulgar have you considered the possiblity that A (viewed from A) could occur even prior to the precursive event A-1 having taken place? Think about this.
I will review my stand. Please point out the inconsistencies in my idea, I will be glad to either refute them or adjust my argument. Keep in mind that I will be addressing scientific issues later. The A and A-1 idea is meant to be viewed in the classical philosophical sense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MonkBulgar I am going to have to hold you to answer this segment of our previous debate. It is very crucial that we do not jump this segment,
Comment
Comment