Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Mind, the Brain and Free Will
« Last post by jaimehlers on Today at 11:53:31 AM »
I disagree very sharply with premise 2, which undercuts most of the subsequent ones.  Dependence is not the same thing as control, and presenting it as such distorts your argument almost to the point of uselessness.  For example, children are dependent on their parents, but they are generally not controlled by their parents.  As a second example, plants are dependent on the sun, specifically sunlight, but that does not mean the sun controls them through sunlight.  Or, take a virtual environment; it is dependent on the hardware needed to run it, but it is not necessarily controlled by that hardware.  It can be, but that is not the same thing as saying that it always is.

In short, the mind being dependent on the brain does not mean that the brain controls the mind.  Therefore, your assumption that the one leads to the other does not hold, and the other assumptions predicated on it do not apply as a result.  So, the argument is not valid as it stands.
52
Knowledge - We know the tooth fairy isn't real because we've participated in its falseness.  We've knowingly put the the money under the pillow, or wrapped the presents and put them under the tree.  We willingly and knowingly conspire in these activities as "fun", fantasy, and perpetuate it as false.  On the other hand, Christianity (and other religions) have been perpetuated with the assumption of being true.

Why are you so certain that god is real? Could he not also be just as false as the tooth fairy, even though fewer people know it? If you could fall for a quarter-laden (well, that was what we got when I was a kid. Inflation probably has a tooth worth $5 or so now) tiny and flying fairy when you were six, does that not mean that you were, and perhaps still are, predisposed to believe in anything when you think it will be profitable?

That the motives for tooth fairies and gods vary doesn't mean that the methods to get you to believe do.

53
General Religious Discussion / The Mind, the Brain and Free Will
« Last post by PhilosoB on Today at 11:13:16 AM »
This argument is meant to simplify some of the technical aspects and various positions regarding the existence of the mind. I also wanted to highlight some of the closely related issues connected to this topic.

The three options in the first premise are empirically equivalent, meaning that the findings of cognitive science and neuroscience will be the same regardless of which option is correct. The differences between the options is metaphysical, and thus, this is a metaphysical argument.

1. The mind is either identical to the brain or dependent on the brain or independent from the brain.
2. If the mind is either identical to the brain or dependent on the brain, then the mind is controlled by the brain
3. If the mind is controlled by the brain, then free will and moral responsibility do not exist.
4. Free will and moral responsibility do exist.
5. Therefore, the mind is not controlled by the brain (MT 3, 4)
6. Therefore, the mind is neither identical to the brain or dependent on the brain (MT 2, 5)
7. Therefore, the mind is independent from the brain (DS 1, 6)

Definitions:
Mind is the source of our beliefs, feelings, desires, volitions, and  perceptions.[1]
Free will is, minimally, the capacity to control one's actions.[2]
Moral responsibility is the capacity to know and ability to act as one ought.

The first premise lays out the three broad options for defining the mind roughly relating to physicalism, property dualism, and substance dualism. If you think the mind does not exist or reduces to the brain, then that is equivalent to the mind and brain being identical. If you think that the mind emerges from the complexity of the brain, then the mind is dependent on the brain. Choose the last option if you think that the mind is an independent substance from the brain.

The second premise groups the first two options according to the mutual cause of the brain. By control, I mean that the mind operates according the physical states of the brain and that the mind has no causal powers over the brain.

The third premise is based on the idea that an object that responds only to physical causes cannot control how it acts. This applies whether these causes are determined or in some sense random as long as they are physical in origin.

The fourth premise is an inductive statement that most accept as true if not explicitly, then implicitly in daily interaction with other people. We assume this is true whenever we blame or praise someone for what they did.

The final three conclusions follow logically from the premises therefore the argument is valid. The premises seem more plausibly true than their negations therefore the argument is sound (though I am sure many will correct me).

I look forward to sincere responses and critiques. I will try to answer questions of clarity directly related to my arguments; however, questions presented as apparent counterarguments will be ignored, for questions are not arguments. Also, simply stating possible alternative explanations is not enough. To challenge the soundness of this argument, it has to be shown how the premises are less plausibly true than their negations.  I suggest perusing this article for a good overview of the topic.
 1. http://www.iep.utm.edu/mental-c/
 2. http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/
54
I think if God stepped in and explained everything he didn't do, then we wouldn't need any evidence that he existed, due to his regular lectures about himself.

It would certainly satisfy his narcissism...
55
I think if God stepped in and explained everything he didn't do, then we wouldn't need any evidence that he existed, due to his regular lectures about himself.
56
Chatter / Re: Device Drivers upgrades
« Last post by junebug72 on Today at 10:48:38 AM »
It really looks like I just have to wait for pay day. 
57
<snip>
Your statement "False evidence isn't evidence" is not useful for determining if something is evidence, until it is seen to be false, by the person using it.

You're missing the point. Read a few posts after that one.
58
Chatter / Device Drivers upgrades
« Last post by junebug72 on Today at 10:17:58 AM »
I need some help downloading rom simulators and roms.  I need to upgrade my drivers for free.  Anybody know any trust worthy free driver/device updaters. 

DV3 I need here buddy.  I'll take advice from any of my capable peers. I have 14 devices that need upgrading.  Running an Acer by Gateway windows 7 64 bit.

I had to go back to factory defaults because I forgot my administrative passwords. 
59
Again, semantics, but before proven false, it still exists as evidence.

Thing is, it doesn't. It exists as a delusion. False evidence isn't evidence.

I have great difficulty using the word "evidence", nowadays. In a scientific usage it has meaning, because it's presumed that the evidence is only provisional, and that an eventual working theory may be useful, rather than true.

It's also difficult to use the word "proof". I have generally decided to avoid using the word "evidence" where possible. However, I am free to ask someone what evidence they have, because it's at least a starting point.

Your statement "False evidence isn't evidence" is not useful for determining if something is evidence, until it is seen to be false, by the person using it.  Many things in science have been considered to be evidence, until proven to be complete rubbish.
60
Religion & Society / Re: Atheist only!
« Last post by junebug72 on Today at 10:06:20 AM »
I get it, lol, my new smiley website.  There's some cool smiley's/emoticons there.  I love it.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10