Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
81
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Mind, the Brain and Free Will
« Last post by Azdgari on Yesterday at 06:26:36 AM »
3. If the mind is controlled by the brain, then free will and moral responsibility do not exist.

A.) Free will is invariably undefined.  Care and dare to try to state what you mean by it, specifically?  Freedom of what to do what?  Or, freedom of what from what?  Spell it out.

B.) This simply does not follow.  It is your assumption.  This statement of yours requires a whole other argument in and of itself, and also probably depends on you carrying out what I said in A.)
82
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Mind, the Brain and Free Will
« Last post by Graybeard on Yesterday at 06:15:52 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.
 1. http://www.iep.utm.edu/mental-c/
 2. http://www.iep.utm.edu/freewill/
PhilospB,
You need to read wheels's post above carefully, it raises the most important issue.

I doubt that you would discuss the theory of matter by reference to earth, air, fire, and water. In the same light, you might like to consider why a 17th century philosopher should have produced an inerrant answer.

You are chewing over the philosophy of Descartes who, at the end of the day, agreed that he could find no connection between "mind" and "body".

Unfortunately for Descartes, he did not have the advantage of neuroscience and allied sciences. This is a pity as (i) we can now read thought impulses in the brain, and (ii) know that your brain, as the container of "mind", anticipates your actions rather than reacts to your commands.

83
Susmariosep posted the following in a 2¾ year old thread. To save arguments about resurrection of the dead, I have moved it here. The original thread in which the post appeared can be found by following the link in Jetson's Admin note.

GB
Mod

Quote from: jetson on July 21, 2012, 07:33:46 AM

    Susmariosep is being moderated for his replies and posts.  You will not see his replies until a moderator approves it.  Please be patient!

    Jetson


====================

I am here again because I decided to return in order to learn from atheists.

Here is my observation for today.

Atheists have two false principles of knowledge, namely: (1) the burden of proof is on the party making an affirmative statement, (2) a negative statement cannot be proven.

On these two false principles they can feel safe from saying anything positive at all, wherefore it is impossible to have any productive discourse with them.

Although granting (yet not conceding) for the sake of argument that the party making an affirmative statement has the burden of proof, nevertheless the party rejecting the affirmative statement must explain why he rejects, otherwise he is not being intelligent and logical hence not rational if he just insists that he has no burden to prove, but he is being arbitrary i.e. without any reasonable basis whatever in rejecting the affirmative statement.

Is the demand for explanation why an atheist denies the existence of something the same as the demand for proof?

In regard to the existence of something as opposite to the non-existence of something, for example, the existence of God as opposed to the non-existence of God, there is the distinction of possibility and actuality.

So, as the atheist need not prove the existence of God because he does not bear the burden for not making an affirmative claim, still he must explain why: by pointing out that the very concept of God forecloses the possibility of the existence of God.

That is why the atheist must have at least information on the concept of God, which concept then he can and must explain to be a concept that forecloses the possibility itself of existence.

On the other hand, the theist must explain that his concept of God does not foreclose the existence of God, and then from the possibility of the concept the theist must present evidence proving the fact of the existence of God.

Now, in regard to the atheists' insistence that a negative statement cannot be proven, and therefore they need not prove a negative statement, that is a wrong idea if they atheists do not specify that it is impossible for man to know everything existing in all time and place circumstances, and in particular in the totality of existence -- which concept of the totality of existence is broader than the concept of the material universe that is investigated by scientists.

For example. atheists can reasonably insist that it is impossible for man to know the totality of existence as to ascertain that there is no God in the totality of existence, for atheists being humans cannot search exhaustively the totality of existence at all.

That is why they atheists cannot justify their denial of the existence of God by resorting to their wrong idea that man cannot prove a negative statement: for he can if he can search the totality of existence and has not come to meet God in the totality of existence.

Man can always and must always prove the non-existence of something as long as the circumstances of time and space and the sphere of existence are within his access; for example, man can prove the absence of water (that is a negative statement) in a drinking glass, by physical examination of the drinking glass and also requiring his opponents to physically examine the drinking glass.

Conclusion:

Atheists cannot resort to their false ideas that

(1) they do not have any burden at all even just to explain why they reject the existence of God, unless they first present their concept of God and show that it is an impossible concept.

(2) They cannot excuse themselves that they need not prove a negative statement for it is impossible to prove a negative statement; that is not true in all context of discourse, because they can and must prove a negative statement, for example the absence of water in a drinking glass, when circumstances of time and space and the sphere of existence are within man's access.

Exercise for atheists:

Prove the existence of the nose in your face, prove the existence of God in the nose in your face.

Tip: first, have a concept of God by consulting theists on their first and foremost concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.


Susmariosep
84
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Mind, the Brain and Free Will
« Last post by wheels5894 on Yesterday at 04:21:52 AM »
PhilosoB,

All this sort of discussion is probably great fun but philosophy alone will never get us anywhere, really. how about if you quote some actual research in neuroscience to support the arguments you make? That way we can discuss facts and not opinions. At the moment each person can express an opinion but we have no framework to show who is right and who is wrong.
85
Theists; why does (insert name of your god/goddess) even require you to prove it exists?! We don't have the same problem with the Sun or water, but we do with (insert name of your god/goddess).

There is only one explanation for this; your god is imaginary.
86
Religion & Society / Re: Atheist only!
« Last post by Nam on Yesterday at 01:43:39 AM »
^
Nice to meet you, Jasmine. I'm Belle.



How's the Beast? Aladdin's always leaving me home with my pu...I mean...tiger.

;)

-Nam
87
Religion & Society / Re: Atheist only!
« Last post by Willie on Yesterday at 01:28:38 AM »
^
Nice to meet you, Jasmine. I'm Belle.

88
Religion & Society / Re: Atheist only!
« Last post by Nam on Yesterday at 01:08:53 AM »
I sometimes get mild amusement by taking the silly ones that pretty obviously don't apply to me when friends or relatives post them on facebook. Such as "Which Disney princess are you?", "How girly are you", or "What kind of goth are you?".


I'm Jasmine.

;)

-Nam
89
Religion & Society / Re: Another GOP presidential candidate
« Last post by Nam on Yesterday at 01:06:33 AM »
I have never said I do not hate. I hate Christianity, and if I knew as much about other religions as I do about it I'd probably hate them, too. I also hate bigots, like you, and racists, and prejudiced people--pretty much anyone who hates other people because they do not display their type of person or what they perceive people, in general, should be like.

For the type of person I am to say I don't hate would make me a hypocrite but I don't do that. You do that. People like you do that.

You say you love people but you don't. Now, you may love yourself, or your significant other, or your children but that's not the same thing. That's conditioned love. I'm purely speaking in general.

Example: you may say, or a Christian may say that they love homosexuals, they have friends or family that are homosexual but then you or others turn around and create laws that are specifically for the purpose of treating them as if they are not even human.

That's not love. I do not care how you twist it to be some demented love but it is not. That's hate. Pure and simple.

And while I may hate people like you, I do not advocate nor promote laws that are hateful against you. I do not tell you to your face (or otherwise) that I love you but then turn around and say you're not really human.

I don't do that.

I may consistently belittle, ridicule, insult, and demean you but I at least have the guts to do it to your face (literally or figuratively), people like you, however, hide behind your religion.

You are cowards. I am not. We may have similarities but we are not the same.

Oh, and CARM is a hate website just like I think PETA is a hate group and the FFRF is turning into one because they go after petty things as people like you do.

-Nam
90
Religion & Society / Re: Atheist only!
« Last post by Willie on Yesterday at 01:04:51 AM »
I sometimes get mild amusement by taking the silly ones that pretty obviously don't apply to me when friends or relatives post them on facebook. Such as "Which Disney princess are you?", "How girly are you", or "What kind of goth are you?".

A "Which Harry Potter Character are you?" quiz actually pegged me pretty well as Ollivander, the wand maker. For Star Trek characters, I am Spock, apparently. And my occupation in medieval times would have been dressmaker.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10