[quote]pat wrote:
Determinism is a whole different ball of wax. There’s not enough time or space on the T-Nation servers to handle both topics. Causation is not the same topic…[/quote]
Which is why I didn’t agree with being called a determinist because I believe in causation.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think the conversation goes easier if everyone is on the same page.[/quote]
That’s crazy talk. [/quote]
I’m on page 16, what about everyone else?
[/quote]
Fail
Pat:
[quote]Your rejection of duelism is not in question here. It’s what you can prove. What you cannot prove is that you exist. You cannot prove you’re not an illusion to my mind a hallucination. Hell, I cannot prove I am not dreamed up by something else. It could all be one giant illusion. You believe you are a physical entity, I believe you are to, but you cannot prove that anything exits beyond your perceptions. I think I made you up, prove me wrongÃ?¢?Ã?¦.
Every thing is a mental state, if your not dead, your brain is in a state. Your state is your paradigm for perception. You perception is your reality, and you cannot be sure your reality is more real than anybody else. Again, we verify by consensus�¢?�¦ [/quote]
Ofcourse i can prove i exist; it just depends on what you accept as evidence. If we verify by consensus then what are your parameters for establishing the truth?
Put a person, who sees others who are not there, in a room with a [infrared] camera, and you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that there are no others present in the room. That person will not believe the footage ofcourse, but that’s not the point.
If you fall, you fall to the ground. That’s a real world consequence of being alive. No mental states necessary; if you fall, you fall to the ground.
Again, so what? This proves nothing.
[quote][Right. So why do you separate thought, or objects in thought, from the whole: the brain/body?]
Because it tells you why. If you don’t try to break things apart you’ll never know why. You can drive a car even though you don’t know how it works, but you don’t know shit about cars unless you start looking at the pieces.[/quote]
You may not have broken it down far enough pat, and you may have looked at the pieces with preconceived notions.
Ego, the idea of self, and everything that we believe makes us a person; that is a product of thought. The whole construct of self is a mirage that exists only in thought. And because you did not look close enough you failed to see it’s illusory nature.
Instead you’ve opted to believe this mirage is probably godgiven.
When my body dies the man that existed nowhere else but in thought, dies too.
The end.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps, but when you’re dead being right doesn’t do you much good, does it?[/quote]
Actually, with this one specific question, it could.[/quote]
How, exactly?
[/quote]
If there is something after, I could still be right, even dead. I would then rub it in your face.[/quote]
So, from an uncaused cause it follows there’s an afterlife?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps, but when you’re dead being right doesn’t do you much good, does it?[/quote]
Actually, with this one specific question, it could.[/quote]
How, exactly?
[/quote]
If there is something after, I could still be right, even dead. I would then rub it in your face.[/quote]
So, from an uncaused cause it follows there’s an afterlife?
[/quote]
No, from an uncaused cause it flows that things exist outside of our understanding. Accepting that a lot of things are possible.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps, but when you’re dead being right doesn’t do you much good, does it?[/quote]
Actually, with this one specific question, it could.[/quote]
How, exactly?
[/quote]
If there is something after, I could still be right, even dead. I would then rub it in your face.[/quote]
So, from an uncaused cause it follows there’s an afterlife?
[/quote]
No, from an uncaused cause it flows that things exist outside of our understanding. Accepting that a lot of things are possible.[/quote]
I don’t need the believe in an uncaused cause for that. A great many things are beyond my understanding; except for one thing.
Me.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps, but when you’re dead being right doesn’t do you much good, does it?[/quote]
Actually, with this one specific question, it could.[/quote]
How, exactly?
[/quote]
If there is something after, I could still be right, even dead. I would then rub it in your face.[/quote]
So, from an uncaused cause it follows there’s an afterlife?
[/quote]
No, from an uncaused cause it flows that things exist outside of our understanding. Accepting that a lot of things are possible.[/quote]
I don’t need the believe in an uncaused cause for that. A great many things are beyond my understanding; except for one thing.
Me.[/quote]
Really? I discover things about myself all the time.
Do you have a soul? Is there a part of your existence outside the physical world?
What will happen when you die?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I don’t need the believe in an uncaused cause for that. A great many things are beyond my understanding; except for one thing.
Me.[/quote]
Really? I discover things about myself all the time.
Do you have a soul? Is there a part of your existence outside the physical world?
What will happen when you die?[/quote]
A soul, as in, an eternal sliver of something-something that survives after death? No, i don’t.
Do i exist outside the physical world? I’m not sure what you mean by that; but no, i don’t.
When i die i cease to exist.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I don’t need the believe in an uncaused cause for that. A great many things are beyond my understanding; except for one thing.
Me.[/quote]
Really? I discover things about myself all the time.
Do you have a soul? Is there a part of your existence outside the physical world?
What will happen when you die?[/quote]
A soul, as in, an eternal sliver of something-something that survives after death? No, i don’t.
Do i exist outside the physical world? I’m not sure what you mean by that; but no, i don’t.
When i die i cease to exist.
[/quote]
So you’re consciousness is purely physical?
How do you know this?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps, but when you’re dead being right doesn’t do you much good, does it?[/quote]
Actually, with this one specific question, it could.[/quote]
How, exactly?
[/quote]
If there is something after, I could still be right, even dead. I would then rub it in your face.[/quote]
So, from an uncaused cause it follows there’s an afterlife?
[/quote]
No, from an uncaused cause it flows that things exist outside of our understanding. Accepting that a lot of things are possible.[/quote]
A lot of things are possible, but not all of them are true.
What is your theology, anyway?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
A soul, as in, an eternal sliver of something-something that survives after death? No, i don’t.
Do i exist outside the physical world? I’m not sure what you mean by that; but no, i don’t.
When i die i cease to exist.
[/quote]
So you’re consciousness is purely physical?
How do you know this?[/quote]
Observation, investigation and conclusion.
But there’s a caveat. Consciousness may go beyond the physical bounderies, but it isn’t/can’t be owned by someone.
“I” appears through the body in this centerless field of consciousness, but when this body dies “I” disappear from it. Such is the nature of physical existence.
Life after death is a comforting idea, nothing more.
I actually take comfort in the idea that this life is it, and when it’s gone, then that’s it.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
A soul, as in, an eternal sliver of something-something that survives after death? No, i don’t.
Do i exist outside the physical world? I’m not sure what you mean by that; but no, i don’t.
When i die i cease to exist.
[/quote]
So you’re consciousness is purely physical?
How do you know this?[/quote]
Observation, investigation and conclusion.
But there’s a caveat. Consciousness may go beyond the physical bounderies, but it isn’t/can’t be owned by someone.
“I” appears through the body in this centerless field of consciousness, but when this body dies “I” disappear from it. Such is the nature of physical existence.
Life after death is a comforting idea, nothing more.
I actually take comfort in the idea that this life is it, and when it’s gone, then that’s it.
[/quote]
Existentialistic-ish?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
A soul, as in, an eternal sliver of something-something that survives after death? No, i don’t.
Do i exist outside the physical world? I’m not sure what you mean by that; but no, i don’t.
When i die i cease to exist.
[/quote]
So you’re consciousness is purely physical?
How do you know this?[/quote]
Observation, investigation and conclusion.
But there’s a caveat. Consciousness may go beyond the physical bounderies, but it isn’t/can’t be owned by someone.
“I” appears through the body in this centerless field of consciousness, but when this body dies “I” disappear from it. Such is the nature of physical existence.
Life after death is a comforting idea, nothing more.
I actually take comfort in the idea that this life is it, and when it’s gone, then that’s it.
[/quote]
Existentialistic-ish?[/quote]
No, not really. I’m just okay with it ending. Life is a magical thing, but this one time; that’s more than enough for me.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps, but when you’re dead being right doesn’t do you much good, does it?[/quote]
Actually, with this one specific question, it could.[/quote]
How, exactly?
[/quote]
If there is something after, I could still be right, even dead. I would then rub it in your face.[/quote]
So, from an uncaused cause it follows there’s an afterlife?
[/quote]
No, from an uncaused cause it flows that things exist outside of our understanding. Accepting that a lot of things are possible.[/quote]
A lot of things are possible, but not all of them are true.
What is your theology, anyway?
[/quote]
And things unprovable aren’t all false.
Me? Kind of a modern Jeffersonian Christian?
I believe there is a god. I believe in innate human rights. Because of that, I believe the teachings and moral code of Jesus.
I don’t claim physical laws are broken in the form of miracles, but I do believe it is possible there is “wiggle room” in the laws where external influence cannot be ruled out. This does also leave a little wiggle room for both free will and revaluation.
I also believe miracles are possible within the physical framework, so I don’t see a big theological difference between a miracle happening due to god’s influence at the time of the event vs. at origin of the universe.
So, I don’t see the difference between theological revelation and god setting up the universe in a way that I have the ability to discover truth for myself.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
A soul, as in, an eternal sliver of something-something that survives after death? No, i don’t.
Do i exist outside the physical world? I’m not sure what you mean by that; but no, i don’t.
When i die i cease to exist.
[/quote]
So you’re consciousness is purely physical?
How do you know this?[/quote]
Observation, investigation and conclusion.
But there’s a caveat. Consciousness may go beyond the physical bounderies, but it isn’t/can’t be owned by someone.
“I” appears through the body in this centerless field of consciousness, but when this body dies “I” disappear from it. Such is the nature of physical existence.
Life after death is a comforting idea, nothing more.
I actually take comfort in the idea that this life is it, and when it’s gone, then that’s it.
[/quote]
Existentialistic-ish?[/quote]
No, not really. I’m just okay with it ending. Life is a magical thing, but this one time; that’s more than enough for me.
[/quote]
Sounds existentialist to me. Life has the meaning the individual gives it, accepting your own mortality and all.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
No, not really. I’m just okay with it ending. Life is a magical thing, but this one time; that’s more than enough for me.
[/quote]
Sounds existentialist to me. Life has the meaning the individual gives it, accepting your own mortality and all.
[/quote]
If by chance that label fits me, so be it: i’m an existentialist. But i’ve no idea what it’s supposed to mean (:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
No, not really. I’m just okay with it ending. Life is a magical thing, but this one time; that’s more than enough for me.
[/quote]
Sounds existentialist to me. Life has the meaning the individual gives it, accepting your own mortality and all.
[/quote]
If by chance that label fits me, so be it: i’m an existentialist. But i’ve no idea what it’s supposed to mean (:
[/quote]
I honestly don’t think anyone really know what it means.
A very good night to you DD; thanks for the chat, and until next time!
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps, but when you’re dead being right doesn’t do you much good, does it?[/quote]
Actually, with this one specific question, it could.[/quote]
How, exactly?
[/quote]
If there is something after, I could still be right, even dead. I would then rub it in your face.[/quote]
So, from an uncaused cause it follows there’s an afterlife?
[/quote]
No, from an uncaused cause it flows that things exist outside of our understanding. Accepting that a lot of things are possible.[/quote]
A lot of things are possible, but not all of them are true.
What is your theology, anyway?
[/quote]
And things unprovable aren’t all false.[/quote]
Sure… but, I recommend avoiding the trap of assuming that because something has not been disproved that it is likely to be true.
[quote] Me? Kind of a modern Jeffersonian Christian?
I believe there is a god. I believe in innate human rights. Because of that, I believe the teachings and moral code of Jesus.
I don’t claim physical laws are broken in the form of miracles, but I do believe it is possible there is “wiggle room” in the laws where external influence cannot be ruled out. This does also leave a little wiggle room for both free will and revaluation.
I also believe miracles are possible within the physical framework, so I don’t see a big theological difference between a miracle happening due to god’s influence at the time of the event vs. at origin of the universe.
So, I don’t see the difference between theological revelation and god setting up the universe in a way that I have the ability to discover truth for myself.[/quote]
This reminds me very much of the logical backflips I used to do, trying to convince myself that there was a god.
BTW - Jefferson would not have appreciated the title “christian.”
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
“god” and “a cause” are two very different things.
[/quote]
depends on what you mean by each. A cause is god to a deist.
I’m not a determinist, at least not really. I don’t believe in the possibility of scientific determination. There is still chance involved in the universe. Like playing craps. The dice allow room for possible free will because they aren’t predictable. BUT the dice coming up on a certain number is still an exact cause for the events that happen. I think there is room for both causation and free will, at least to an extent.
And I’m not using the universe. I using the universes lack of ability to explain itself. and by that logic the cause is NOT bound by the rules of the universe.
And I can’t say weather an initial cause needs a cause because it is specifically not part of this universe.
I just know that an atom can’t exist of it’s own accord.[/quote]
Wasn’t it you who earlier in this thread argued that unpredictability and non-determinism are not the same thing?
Also, you certainly did use the universe to come to the conclusion that all things must have a cause. This is my point. You draw the cause and effect relationship from observation of the physical universe. If not… then, from where do you draw the need for cause and effect?[/quote]
Humm are you confusing DD for me? Anyways as an attempt to conduct meaningful discussion and not just walls of text that do nothing for either party, that is not what I said. If you want to know my position on determinism I am a transcendental determinist in that only God knows what exactly is going to play out according to the free will he has given us.
What I said was that the indeterminate nature of quantum mechanics does not mean or equate that the theory and the universe is irrational(violating the rules of logic). Nor can I imagine any experiment or its outcome proving the universe to be irrational(according to definition I just gave it); and having science with any sense of reliability being able to accurately describe our irrational universe if that was the case.
I remember that you were still looking about a word that described your philosophy, does scientism or hard scientism describe your position?