Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Crap! I timed-out before finishing. I guess you can ignore the construction zone warning. Or...maybe not. Although that particular post is as done as it will ever be, my overall theoretical effort is on-going so, in a way, every post I ever submit ought to have that warning.
In every moment we are free to choose how we respond to whatever we happen to be facing.
Do we have control over what is happening to us ? No we do not. Do we have choice over how we respond? Yes absolutely we do. That is free will......it is our choice how to respond. We have a choice over our thought speech feelings and action. In every situation in our life. In every place in our life. And in every moment in our life.
It really is that simple. That is what free will is. Period. Full stop.
The resistance many people have to that is, since we have choice over our thought speech action and feelings......we are therefore responsible for our thought speech action and feelings. Many people balk kick and scream at (gasp) having to take responsibility for our thought speech action and feelings. And the natural consequences that follow from the choices we make. And the maturity and discipline and self awareness to consciously choose a response, instead of unconscious knee jerk reaction.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 11-18-2018 at 11:09 AM..
I disagree. Just because George Washington (and it is almost always George Washington) was embellished, that does not mean Jesus actually existed. His existence as a man could be an embellishment of the angel or divine being revealed in the Old Testament.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The idea that such early writings were fiction during a time when writing was such a rare and difficult task is preposterous. Writing was a serious business reserved for serious things.
So, as I thought, I had the thread of the argument right - if you are going to claim The gospels as true on the rather absurd grounds that "writing was such a rare and difficult task" that they wouldn't have written down what wasn't true, then earlier Mesopotamian myths must also be taken as true because by the same logic, they wouldn't put time into an even more "Rare and difficult task" if it wasn't true.
You then get out of that by saying 'They thought it was true' - implying that they believed it, but in fact it wasn't true. But that's not how you see the Gospel -writings. The effort and difficulty of writing for you means it has to be true (whether or not they knew it wasn't or thought it was true but it wasn't really is a difference that makes no difference - you are arguing that it must be true or what's the point of your argument at all). Tzaph then nailed you to the wall:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Ancient Chinese writing evolved during the Shang Dynasty 1600-1046 BCE which is about 3,400 years ago. I recall you saying earlier in the thread that ancient people were ignorant primitives. Now you are saying writing is a serious business reserved for serious things?
See this is what I mean by how utterly inconsistent you are in your flawed logic.
It is not only double -standards but done through ad hoc responses that show that you can't keep track of your own argument.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-18-2018 at 01:03 PM..
Reason: use hyphens instead of brackets -they are cheaper.
So, as I thought, I had the thread of the argument right - if you are going to claim The gospels as true on the rather absurd grounds that "writing was such a rare and difficult task" that they wouldn't have written down what wasn't true, then earlier Mesopotamian myths must also be taken as true because by the same logic, they wouldn't put time into an even more "Rare and difficult task" if it wasn't true.
You then get out of that by saying 'They thought it was true' - implying that they believed it, but in fact it wasn't true. But that's not how you see the Gospel -writings. The effort and difficulty of writing for you means it has to be true (whether or not they knew it wasn't or thought it was true but it wasn't really is a difference that makes no difference - you are arguing that it must be true or what's the point of your argument at all). Tzaph then nailed you to the wall:-
It is not only double -standards but done through ad hoc responses that show that you can't keep track of your own argument.
Fiction is fiction because the writers KNEW it was not true. That is far different from recording what they THOUGHT or BELIEVED was true at the time given their knowledge, understanding, and mindset.
Construction Zone!
If you are reading this, right now, then beware that I am not done yet, and this whole post could turn out be a complete flop. I'm just saving periodically so that I don't lose everything, given my glitchy computer and clumsy fingers.
Yesterday I was listening to NPR and there was a discussion about free will. At one point a neuroscientist admitted that he can't help but believe in free will, even though he also believes that there cannot actually be free will. In other words, he is torn. On some level he feels that is irrational to reject the possibility of free will, even though science seems to have logically shut down any real possibility of free will. I have the rough sketch of a possible solution to this conundrum, and I want to mention it here because I think that my solution is full-fledge, straight-up magical in a way that Tza might appreciate, and I think my solution also goes to the core of MPhD's efforts to outline a non-magical approach to theism. (I'm going to ignore the specifically "Christian" aspect of the thread because, in my view, it adds unnecessary mud to what I find to be the truly interesting core issue.)
The neuroscientist's key point was simple: Every choice is a decision that ultimately rests on neural firings, and every neural firing is a physical process exhibiting the laws of physics. There is simply no room for free will to have any relevance. Indeterminism - yes, quantum mechanics leaves room for indeterminism, but this takes the form of pure randomness within a spread of probabilities, and this sort of randomness is not what most of us mean by free will. I believe that, at one point, the neuroscientist literally used the word 'magic' in saying that if free will exists, then it would have to be a magical process in the brain. And my proposal is to bite the bullet and say that, yes, literal actual magic does indeed happen in the brain. But, oddly enough, I'm also going to insist that, although this speculation about magic goes beyond science, it does not actually conflict with known science. Indeed, my hypothesis is scientific in the sense that it can, in principle, be tested and falsified (although, at the moment, I can't conceive of any real-world practical experimental protocol that could actually test it).
First, I need to be as clear as I can be about two key terms:
Magic = a fundamental ("brute fact") causal role for the subjective/qualitative aspects of consciousness (aka "qualia") over and above any algorithmic mathematical models meant to capture the dynamics of material Reality.
Free will = If free will exists, then, for some given conscious choice, C, it is possible that the subjective qualitative feel of the choice-making process serves as the initiation of a physical causal chain that is, to a significant extent, "independent" of the mathematically characterizable algorithmic processes occurring in the brain just prior to C. (Metaphorically, you could compare this to the quantum mechanical "collapse of the waveform" which serves as a fundamentally unpredictable discontinuity in the otherwise causally smooth unfolding of Schrodinger's wave equation. But in the case of free will, this discontinuity is not rooted in pure randomness.)
My hypothesis goes beyond known science but does not contradict known science because, as of now, the hypothesis has not been tested. To test my hypothesis we would somehow have to map the collective behaviors of neurons in vitro during sentient experience. If I'm right about free will, then there will be macro-scale patterns of neural firing triggered at the quantum level that defy any reduction to the known principles and forces of physics. We would be witnessing, in effect, a type of "psychokinesis" that might be metaphorically comparable to, say, "winning the lottery" multiple times per day.
Two concepts would need to be considered in this regard: The principles of self-organization and the holism that is implicit in quantum entanglement. As a physical system, the brain is clearly a self-organizing system. The nature of neural connectivity is exactly right for self-organization to occur and there is good evidence that it does occur. As for entanglement, it is debatable whether or not any significant degree of quantum entanglement is sustained in the warm, macro-scale environment of the brain, but at the moment I'm thinking that entanglement - or some as yet unknown other mechanism for holism? - will be found in the brain if free choice happens. Neural self-organization might, in principle, be able to explain complex human behavior and learning, but it cannot, in itself, explain the qualitative feel of experience (aka, "the hard problem"). If I am right about qualitative feelings playing a causal role, then mathematical models of self-organizing neurons will not, all by themselves, capture the full dynamics of brain processes. There will still be a left-over level of holism that is unaccounted for. My desire for chocolate cake would be a brain-wide (actually a body-wide, and probably even Reality-wide)type of phenomenon.
And just to be clear: "Free will" does not imply freedom "all the way down." Logic allows that, in principle, it is possible that I chose to be physically born (reincarnation and substance dualism are not logical impossibilities), but it is logically impossible for any being to consciously choose to exist. Even God could not have consciously chosen to exist. The same goes for our initial nature as conscious beings. A being cannot conscious choose to be conscious; it can only "awaken" to sentience and then, presumably, awaken to consciousness and then, in the case of human beings, awaken to conscious self-awareness. So "free will" has to start with our already given existence and our already given nature. We can't choose our initially "given" nature, but given our nature, free will implies that we can consciously choose behaviors that violate the otherwise smooth unfolding of natural laws insofar as we are, so to speak, causally "independent" (to some extent) initiators of causal chains.
I keep putting "independent" in scare quotes because I have a basically Buddhist-style believe in the ultimate holistic interdependence of all things - but that's a different story. In philosophy lingo, I'm talking about functional independence, not ontological independence or ontological isolation.
my hypothis is that when we get a computer that can do a billion billion calculations a second (and more) we will figure out the brains machine langue and understand whats going on a little better. probably before 2030. and it will be testable.
I think a machine langue for the brain offers a more elegant explanation (concise explanation) for consciousness.
yeah, we are connected to everything around us. we don't need budha to tell us that these days. Physics and chemistry show it quite nicely. indeed all smart people from long ago saw it and wrapped it up in something their peoples could use..
I think you go just a tad to far, but its not to bad.
Fiction is fiction because the writers KNEW it was not true. That is far different from recording what they THOUGHT or BELIEVED was true at the time given their knowledge, understanding, and mindset.
And even fiction, including comedy, had serious purpose. Poking fun at gods could have serious consequences even if those gods did not participate themselves.
Fiction is fiction because the writers KNEW it was not true. That is far different from recording what they THOUGHT or BELIEVED was true at the time given their knowledge, understanding, and mindset.
You're missing the point. You don't know that the writers of the Babylonian myths knew it was 'fiction' so (by your argument) they must have at least believed it. Whether they were inventing it or repeating what they thought was true, that it was a lot of work to write at the time does not make it true, even if they believed it was.
I get the distinction between gospel writers who were just making stuff up and the same if they thought it was true (though in fact i think they were like modern believers - they didn't care). I get the distinction between knowing fiction and erroneous history. But that just tells us about the mind of the people who wrote the stuff. It does not make what they wrote reliable - which is the only point that matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
And even fiction, including comedy, had serious purpose. Poking fun at gods could have serious consequences even if those gods did not participate themselves.
Funny thing with Athenian Old Comedy - you could make fun With the Gods, but you had better not make fun OF the gods. And we know what happened to those who (To use Aristophanes' accusation of Philosophers) "Blasphemed the gods-".
In every moment we are free to choose how we respond to whatever we happen to be facing.
Do we have control over what is happening to us ? No we do not. Do we have choice over how we respond? Yes absolutely we do. That is free will......it is our choice how to respond. We have a choice over our thought speech feelings and action. In every situation in our life. In every place in our life. And in every moment in our life.
It really is that simple. That is what free will is. Period. Full stop.
The resistance many people have to that is, since we have choice over our thought speech action and feelings......we are therefore responsible for our thought speech action and feelings. Many people balk kick and scream at (gasp) having to take responsibility for our thought speech action and feelings. And the natural consequences that follow from the choices we make. And the maturity and discipline and self awareness to consciously choose a response, instead of unconscious knee jerk reaction.
we are not really 'free to do as you wish". things you don't care so much about you have more choices in what you can do. Things you feel strongly about you have less freedom to chose. I couldn't kill for no reason or just personal gain. I have no choice.
we can demonstrate that claim by injecting you with drugs and changing your behavior. then we can could put in in a room with chemicals in the air to change how you behave. maybe we put the chemicals in your food and watch how it affects you.
maybe just eat at the local low end food dispenser and watch how some people's behavior changes.
either way, its the sheer complexity that offers you the illusion of free will. your god did that so you don't get depressed and just stop living 5 minutes before the miracle.
You're missing the point. You don't know that the writers of the Babylonian myths knew it was 'fiction' so (by your argument) they must have at least believed it. Whether they were inventing it or repeating what they thought was true, that it was a lot of work to write at the time does not make it true, even if they believed it was.
I get the distinction between gospel writers who were just making stuff up and the same if they thought it was true (though in fact i think they were like modern believers - they didn't care). I get the distinction between knowing fiction and erroneous history. But that just tells us about the mind of the people who wrote the stuff. It does not make what they wrote reliable - which is the only point that matters.
You miss the point, Arq. They were reporting what they thought was true because of how they interpreted the world within their context and perceptions. If it was not true, they didn't know it and had no way of knowing it. That means that we need to interpret their interpretations with our modern eyes and knowledge to discern what they were actually interpreting and recording. My favorite example is the Thor one I have used before.
The following descriptions compare the way a modern man would interpret what he has seen with the way the same event would have been interpreted by a Viking GENIUS. First, the actual event as it would be described in the modern interpretation:
A man lands a helicopter in a clearing of the forest, takes out a .45 caliber automatic pistol, shoots it at a rabbit, then returns to the helicopter and flies away into the clouds.
The Viking, on the other hand, would probably describe it in a manner similar to the following:
Thor came hunting in a flying chariot with his hammer that creates thunder and throws lightning bolts and then went back to his home in the clouds.
It is important to recognize that the Viking's interpretation is not the result of low intelligence, but is the result of a lack of valid information. The previous description would probably have been produced by a Viking genius, as long as he lacked any knowledge of gunpowder and helicopters.
To pretend that it all is nonsense because of the implausible interpretations in the writings is fallacious. The Golden Fleece in myth was actually an item of trade. They would use the fleece as a gold panning device. The lighter sand and rocks would flow over the fleece but the heavy gold would be trapped in the fleece. We can not reject the legends and myths as completely devoid of real content. There was no extensive market for Fiction in the ancient world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
