[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I thought this interesting also
https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god[/quote]
I liked it. Thanks for posting. It’s interesting when science can be used to support religious beliefs.
Not sure if it was posted here:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Albert Einstein
Although it can argued Einstein didn’t believe in God, the words are still interesting to me.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.[/quote]
“Meaning.” What is that, exactly? I tried Webster’s, but it took me to “significance,” which then took me back to “meaning,” with a secondary closed system among “important,” “value,” and “worth.”
In other words, what is “meaning,” in your telling?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.[/quote]
“Meaning.” What is that, exactly? I tried Webster’s, but it took me to “significance,” which then took me back to “meaning,” with a secondary closed system among “important,” “value,” and “worth.”
In other words, what is “meaning,” in your telling?[/quote]
The whole point of my post was that, from the physicalist perspective, there is no such thing. For meaning to mean something there’d have to be meaning, but there isn’t in that world view.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.[/quote]
“Meaning.” What is that, exactly? I tried Webster’s, but it took me to “significance,” which then took me back to “meaning,” with a secondary closed system among “important,” “value,” and “worth.”
In other words, what is “meaning,” in your telling?[/quote]
The whole point of my post was that, from the physicalist perspective, there is no such thing. For meaning to mean something there’d have to be meaning, but there isn’t in that world view.[/quote]
I am asking you to supply me with your definition of the term “meaning.” Definition – account of a speaker’s intended use of words – is not “meaning,” that quality, as yet undefined, alleged to perish under physicalism.
And, regardless, you can assume that our questioning the consequences of physicalism and dualism proceeds from a position of at least initial agnosticism.
So, you say that, on physicalism, a human is “devoid of meaning.” Surely this claim is intended to convey information. What is that information? What is “meaning” as you are using it?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.[/quote]
“Meaning.” What is that, exactly? I tried Webster’s, but it took me to “significance,” which then took me back to “meaning,” with a secondary closed system among “important,” “value,” and “worth.”
In other words, what is “meaning,” in your telling?[/quote]
The whole point of my post was that, from the physicalist perspective, there is no such thing. For meaning to mean something there’d have to be meaning, but there isn’t in that world view.[/quote]
I am asking you to supply me with your definition of the term “meaning.” Definition – account of a speaker’s intended use of words – is not “meaning,” that quality, as yet undefined, alleged to perish under physicalism.
And, regardless, you can assume that our questioning the consequences of physicalism and dualism proceeds from a position of at least initial agnosticism.
So, you say that, on physicalism, a human is “devoid of meaning.” Surely this claim is intended to convey information. What is that information? What is “meaning” as you are using it?[/quote]
It cannot be defined on a physical level. So to define it, you would have to first accept my premise that physicalism is wrong. But, the contention is that for the physicalist, it can have no definition can easily be countered by example, but not proved as the negative.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.[/quote]
“Meaning.” What is that, exactly? I tried Webster’s, but it took me to “significance,” which then took me back to “meaning,” with a secondary closed system among “important,” “value,” and “worth.”
In other words, what is “meaning,” in your telling?[/quote]
The whole point of my post was that, from the physicalist perspective, there is no such thing. For meaning to mean something there’d have to be meaning, but there isn’t in that world view.[/quote]
I am asking you to supply me with your definition of the term “meaning.” Definition – account of a speaker’s intended use of words – is not “meaning,” that quality, as yet undefined, alleged to perish under physicalism.
And, regardless, you can assume that our questioning the consequences of physicalism and dualism proceeds from a position of at least initial agnosticism.
So, you say that, on physicalism, a human is “devoid of meaning.” Surely this claim is intended to convey information. What is that information? What is “meaning” as you are using it?[/quote]
It cannot be defined on a physical level.[/quote]
Of course it can.
On physicalism, brain and thought supervene on the physical. Nothing more. Remember, as explained earlier in this thread, that physical supervenience is not unreality. Quite the opposite.
From there you can connect the dots. Words are designed by brains to occasion a particular change in other brains, your brain has offered this word, “meaning.” What change is it deigned to occasion? Etcetera.
There is also question-begging going on in your post, but forget any argument you are trying to make. I am asking you a simple question and it has a simple answer. You say that, on physicalism, a human is “devoid of meaning.” Surely this claim is intended to convey information. What is that information? What is “meaning” as you are using it? Note the last five words of the previous sentence.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.[/quote]
“Meaning.” What is that, exactly? I tried Webster’s, but it took me to “significance,” which then took me back to “meaning,” with a secondary closed system among “important,” “value,” and “worth.”
In other words, what is “meaning,” in your telling?[/quote]
The whole point of my post was that, from the physicalist perspective, there is no such thing. For meaning to mean something there’d have to be meaning, but there isn’t in that world view.[/quote]
I am asking you to supply me with your definition of the term “meaning.” Definition – account of a speaker’s intended use of words – is not “meaning,” that quality, as yet undefined, alleged to perish under physicalism.
And, regardless, you can assume that our questioning the consequences of physicalism and dualism proceeds from a position of at least initial agnosticism.
So, you say that, on physicalism, a human is “devoid of meaning.” Surely this claim is intended to convey information. What is that information? What is “meaning” as you are using it?[/quote]
It cannot be defined on a physical level. So to define it, you would have to first accept my premise that physicalism is wrong. But, the contention is that for the physicalist, it can have no definition can easily be countered by example, but not proved as the negative.[/quote]
Defined on a “physical level?” What?
You’re using the word “meaning”. smh asked you to define what you are intending to convey by the word “meaning”. If you can’t explain what you mean then why are you using the word? What is the point in using a word that others don’t understand and that you can’t/won’t define?
Or, a different approach: This “meaning” you are invoking but not defining, it may or may not exist under physicalism, but, if the latter, we could still talk about (imagine) it, just as Sasquatch may not exist and yet spends a great deal of his time selling beef jerky.
If I’m wrong about this, then you are one step away from disproving physicalism: Simply answer my question. If you do not fall down dead or disappear or instantly turn the universe off as by the flip of a switch, then we know that [~physicalism].
But it doesn’t work like that.
On a side note I’m not really a dualist. I am not convinced that what we discuss as body and soul are separate things. I’m increasingly of the opinion that “soul” is really just a natural part of the universe. It is something that occupies space in between the physical scientific laws but doesn’t circumvent them. It guides physical behavior, but just isn’t analytical. And that neither is a thing without the other.
Biblically speaking, I think even some parts of scripture support this view. According to the resurrection narratives, the heavenly body is still a physical one. Jesus ate and drank and touched and could be touched in his heavenly body. I think the idea that most Christians have as death being a release from the physical to a place of pure spirit is wrong. It would be like having gravity without matter. Heaven I see as a restarting of this world into what it could/should/would have been without sin.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.[/quote]
“Meaning.” What is that, exactly? I tried Webster’s, but it took me to “significance,” which then took me back to “meaning,” with a secondary closed system among “important,” “value,” and “worth.”
In other words, what is “meaning,” in your telling?[/quote]
The whole point of my post was that, from the physicalist perspective, there is no such thing. For meaning to mean something there’d have to be meaning, but there isn’t in that world view.[/quote]
I am asking you to supply me with your definition of the term “meaning.” Definition – account of a speaker’s intended use of words – is not “meaning,” that quality, as yet undefined, alleged to perish under physicalism.
And, regardless, you can assume that our questioning the consequences of physicalism and dualism proceeds from a position of at least initial agnosticism.
So, you say that, on physicalism, a human is “devoid of meaning.” Surely this claim is intended to convey information. What is that information? What is “meaning” as you are using it?[/quote]
It cannot be defined on a physical level.[/quote]
Of course it can.
On physicalism, brain and thought supervene on the physical. Nothing more. Remember, as explained earlier in this thread, that physical supervenience is not unreality. Quite the opposite.
From there you can connect the dots. Words are designed by brains to occasion a particular change in other brains, your brain has offered this word, “meaning.” What change is it deigned to occasion? Etcetera.
There is also question-begging going on in your post, but forget any argument you are trying to make. I am asking you a simple question and it has a simple answer. You say that, on physicalism, a human is “devoid of meaning.” Surely this claim is intended to convey information. What is that information? What is “meaning” as you are using it? Note the last five words of the previous sentence.[/quote]
Give me an arrangement of matter that meet this definition. A picture or something will be fine.I need an example to help me understand. You need to give me physical rules that I can apply to the world and determine if physical systems qualify under your definition of meaning.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Defined on a “physical level?” What?
You’re using the word “meaning”. smh asked you to define what you are intending to convey by the word “meaning”. If you can’t explain what you mean then why are you using the word? What is the point in using a word that others don’t understand and that you can’t/won’t define?[/quote]
I was illustrating the absurdity of thinking and writing from the physicalist perspective. The point is that the sentence (and all sentences really) are rendered absurd. So, no I don’t have to define a word I’m pointing out can’t be defined.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Or, a different approach: This “meaning” you are invoking but not defining, it may or may not exist under physicalism, but, if the latter, we could still talk about (imagine) it, just as Sasquatch may not exist and yet spends a great deal of his time selling beef jerky.
If I’m wrong about this, then you are one step away from disproving physicalism: Simply answer my question. If you do not fall down dead or disappear or instantly turn the universe off as by the flip of a switch, then we know that [~physicalism].
But it doesn’t work like that.[/quote]
You cannot imagine the non-physical in a physicalist world. You could imagine that god is real from the perspective of an atheist too if we can discuss nonsense.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Defined on a “physical level?” What?
You’re using the word “meaning”. smh asked you to define what you are intending to convey by the word “meaning”. If you can’t explain what you mean then why are you using the word? What is the point in using a word that others don’t understand and that you can’t/won’t define?[/quote]
I was illustrating the absurdity of thinking and writing from the physicalist perspective. The point is that the sentence (and all sentences really) are rendered absurd. So, no I don’t have to define a word I’m pointing out can’t be defined.[/quote]
But you used the word. Not merely to say it can’t be defined. You used it yourself and must have had something in mind you were intending to convey when you used it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]cjbuhagr wrote:
No. Human consciousness is an evolutionary aberration, which carries with it anxiety over the prospect of non-existence. So we invent gods and the afterlife to assuage that fear. [/quote]
Then your post is the output of a random system devoid of meaning and therefore devoid of any reason to believe it.[/quote]
“Meaning.” What is that, exactly? I tried Webster’s, but it took me to “significance,” which then took me back to “meaning,” with a secondary closed system among “important,” “value,” and “worth.”
In other words, what is “meaning,” in your telling?[/quote]
The whole point of my post was that, from the physicalist perspective, there is no such thing. For meaning to mean something there’d have to be meaning, but there isn’t in that world view.[/quote]
I am asking you to supply me with your definition of the term “meaning.” Definition – account of a speaker’s intended use of words – is not “meaning,” that quality, as yet undefined, alleged to perish under physicalism.
And, regardless, you can assume that our questioning the consequences of physicalism and dualism proceeds from a position of at least initial agnosticism.
So, you say that, on physicalism, a human is “devoid of meaning.” Surely this claim is intended to convey information. What is that information? What is “meaning” as you are using it?[/quote]
It cannot be defined on a physical level.[/quote]
Of course it can.
On physicalism, brain and thought supervene on the physical. Nothing more. Remember, as explained earlier in this thread, that physical supervenience is not unreality. Quite the opposite.
From there you can connect the dots. Words are designed by brains to occasion a particular change in other brains, your brain has offered this word, “meaning.” What change is it deigned to occasion? Etcetera.
There is also question-begging going on in your post, but forget any argument you are trying to make. I am asking you a simple question and it has a simple answer. You say that, on physicalism, a human is “devoid of meaning.” Surely this claim is intended to convey information. What is that information? What is “meaning” as you are using it? Note the last five words of the previous sentence.[/quote]
Give me an arrangement of matter that meet this definition. A picture or something will be fine.I need an example to help me understand. You need to give me physical rules that I can apply to the world and determine if physical systems qualify under your definition of meaning.
[/quote]
I don’t know what really any of this ^ means, or how it follows from the post it quoted.
This is not complicated or controversial, and it holds for either ontology. I repeat, without any animosity, a point that I made a week or so ago: You seem to have a skewed understanding of physicalism, of what it does and does not entail.
Now, you have arranged words in a sentence and you have written that sentence for other people to see. I have asked you what information you intend to convey to the people who read it. Either you did intend for it to convey information, or you did not. If the former, please elaborate. If the latter, then you should either figure out exactly what you intended to convey or you should inform me of your intention not to.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Defined on a “physical level?” What?
You’re using the word “meaning”. smh asked you to define what you are intending to convey by the word “meaning”. If you can’t explain what you mean then why are you using the word? What is the point in using a word that others don’t understand and that you can’t/won’t define?[/quote]
I was illustrating the absurdity of thinking and writing from the physicalist perspective. The point is that the sentence (and all sentences really) are rendered absurd. So, no I don’t have to define a word I’m pointing out can’t be defined.[/quote]
But you used the word. Not merely to say it can’t be defined. You used it yourself and must have had something in mind you were intending to convey when you used it.[/quote]
Not in the post quoted, which was facetious.
On a broad scale value, meaning, right and wrong, good and evil, to me are relative alignment of a thing with a measuring stick external to the universe.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Give me an arrangement of matter that meet this definition. A picture or something will be fine.I need an example to help me understand. You need to give me physical rules that I can apply to the world and determine if physical systems qualify under your definition of meaning.
[/quote]
I don’t know what really any of this ^ means, or how it follows from the post it quoted.
This is not complicated or controversial, and it holds for either ontology. I repeat, without any animosity, a point that I made a week or so ago: You seem to have a skewed understanding of physicalism, of what it does and does not entail.
Now, you have arranged words in a sentence and you have written that sentence for other people to see. I have asked you what information you intend to convey to the people who read it. Either you did intend for it to convey information, or you did not. If the former, please elaborate. If the latter, then you should either figure out exactly what you intended to convey or you should inform me of your intention not to.[/quote]
Dude, I just asked for an example of a single situation that fit your definition.
Physicalism if rationally applied is insane.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Defined on a “physical level?” What?
You’re using the word “meaning”. smh asked you to define what you are intending to convey by the word “meaning”. If you can’t explain what you mean then why are you using the word? What is the point in using a word that others don’t understand and that you can’t/won’t define?[/quote]
I was illustrating the absurdity of thinking and writing from the physicalist perspective. The point is that the sentence (and all sentences really) are rendered absurd. So, no I don’t have to define a word I’m pointing out can’t be defined.[/quote]
But you used the word. Not merely to say it can’t be defined. You used it yourself and must have had something in mind you were intending to convey when you used it.[/quote]
Not in the post quoted, which was facetious.
On a broad scale value, meaning, right and wrong, good and evil, to me are relative alignment of a thing with a measuring stick external to the universe.[/quote]
I have absolutely no idea what that means.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Defined on a “physical level?” What?
You’re using the word “meaning”. smh asked you to define what you are intending to convey by the word “meaning”. If you can’t explain what you mean then why are you using the word? What is the point in using a word that others don’t understand and that you can’t/won’t define?[/quote]
I was illustrating the absurdity of thinking and writing from the physicalist perspective. The point is that the sentence (and all sentences really) are rendered absurd. So, no I don’t have to define a word I’m pointing out can’t be defined.[/quote]
But you used the word. Not merely to say it can’t be defined. You used it yourself and must have had something in mind you were intending to convey when you used it.[/quote]
Not in the post quoted, which was facetious.
On a broad scale value, meaning, right and wrong, good and evil, to me are relative alignment of a thing with a measuring stick external to the universe.[/quote]
I have absolutely no idea what that means.[/quote]
Good for example means in alignment with the will of God. Meaning is a non physical law of the universe. Human life has meaning (value) because there is an external scale that says it does.
[quote]
I don’t know what really any of this ^ means, or how it follows from the post it quoted.
This is not complicated or controversial, and it holds for either ontology. I repeat, without any animosity, a point that I made a week or so ago: You seem to have a skewed understanding of physicalism, of what it does and does not entail.
Now, you have arranged words in a sentence and you have written that sentence for other people to see. I have asked you what information you intend to convey to the people who read it. Either you did intend for it to convey information, or you did not. If the former, please elaborate. If the latter, then you should either figure out exactly what you intended to convey or you should inform me of your intention not to.[/quote]
Dude, I just asked for an example of a single situation that fit your definition.
Physicalism if rationally applied is insane.[/quote]
I don’t know what you’re talking about though. This is not a debate tactic or something. I don’t know what you’re asking. An example of a single situation that fits my definition of what?
more importantly, none of this is necessary. This paragraph…
[quote]
Now, you have arranged words in a sentence and you have written that sentence for other people to see. I have asked you what information you intend to convey to the people who read it. Either you did intend for it to convey information, or you did not. If the former, please elaborate. If the latter, then you should either figure out exactly what you intended to convey or you should inform me of your intention not to.[/quote]
…is really all that needs to be said, and it really should not be difficult for you to answer the question.
Or do you simply not know what information you intend to convey when you say that humans, on physicalism, are “devoid of meaning”?