Free Will

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:17 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:25 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 28, 2021 1:30 pm
Please quote or link to where I have ever even suggested, "identity," "morality," "meaning," and "creativity," are not real. They are all quite real and all exist, but they do not exist metaphysically.
Then name the material substance from which they are made. Or you're a dualist.
If you read more carefully you know I only believe in one complete no-contingent metaphysical existence.
Oh. You don't believe in the physical world, or in materials? You're an Idealist, then?
As I said, "The metaphysical is all that exists and has the nature it has independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, that is, whether or not anyone is aware of its existence or knows its nature."
That's odd.

You've just tried to redefine the physical world as "metaphysical." You say it's independent of cognition, though...so it has to be, in some sense, physically objective... :? It's neither a form of Realism nor of Idealism. I can't even imagine what you mean by your application of the term "exists," then -- "exists" in what sense? Exists as an idea? Nope, it can't be that, given what you've said. "Exists" as an objective reality or a noumenal one? No, it can't be either, since it's "metaphysical," according to you. But it's "no[n-]contingent," and has a "nature"... :?

Nope. Can't get my head around that. You're going to have to explain how that's even possible.
Since all of physical existents, living physical enitites, conscious living entities, and volitionally conscious human beings all exist and have the natures they have independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of them (with the exception of course of individual's own consciousness and knowledge) the metaphysical includes all physical, living, conscious, and rational entities. All physical attributes, life attributes, consciousness attributes, and mind attributes are perfectly natural metaphysical attributes of the same ontological existence, but are independent attributes. Call that whatever you like. Quadruplism perhaps.
Hmmm..."Quadruplism." That suggests you believe in four different "substances"? I know of nobody who's suggested such a thing. I see a bunch of contradictory claims, but I don't think I can make heads or tails of them.

Like, I can't even begin to unpack the claim, "volitionally conscious human beings all exist and have the natures they have independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of them (with the exception of course of individual's own consciousness and knowledge)." Why "of course"? There's nothing at all obvious about the exception or the reasons for it. :shock: And why should we think that nothing about "natures" (whatever is meant by that word) is "independent of" everyone's knowledge except the individuals? :shock:

Nope. There's something that either you're explaining very badly, or this is just not coherent in any language. I certainly can't make the claims add up.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:17 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:30 pm Do you know what a gestalt is?
Sure. But it has no application to this issue.
God is more than the sum of His parts. This is a radical belief for all theists.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:19 am God is more than the sum of His parts.
Your god has "parts"? :shock:
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:36 am
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:17 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:25 pm
Then name the material substance from which they are made. Or you're a dualist.
If you read more carefully you know I only believe in one complete no-contingent metaphysical existence.
Oh. You don't believe in the physical world, or in materials? You're an Idealist, then?
I have to ask you if you suffer from short term memory or are you just unable to follow a complex sentence? How can you say, "you don't believe in the physical world, after reading the following:
If you read more carefully you know I only believe in one complete no-contingent metaphysical existence. As I said, "The metaphysical is all that exists and has the nature it has independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, that is, whether or not anyone is aware of its existence or knows its nature." Since all of physical existents, living physical enitites, conscious living entities, and volitionally conscious human beings all exist and have the natures they have independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of them (with the exception of course of individual's own consciousness and knowledge) the metaphysical includes all physical, living, conscious, and rational entities. All physical attributes, life attributes, consciousness attributes, and mind attributes are perfectly natural metaphysical attributes of the same ontological existence, but are independent attributes.
Unless you are lying, and I don't want to accuse you of that, only some kind of mental defect could explain your saying I do not believe in the physical world.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:36 am
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:17 am As I said, "The metaphysical is all that exists and has the nature it has independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of it, that is, whether or not anyone is aware of its existence or knows its nature."
That's odd.

You've just tried to redefine the physical world as "metaphysical." You say it's independent of cognition, though...so it has to be, in some sense, physically objective... :? It's neither a form of Realism nor of Idealism. I can't even imagine what you mean by your application of the term "exists," then -- "exists" in what sense? Exists as an idea? Nope, it can't be that, given what you've said. "Exists" as an objective reality or a noumenal one? No, it can't be either, since it's "metaphysical," according to you. But it's "no[n-]contingent," and has a "nature"... :?

Nope. Can't get my head around that. You're going to have to explain how that's even possible.
Well, I'm sorry, there is not much I can do about your mental deficiency to understand complex concepts.

I have to explain how what is true is even possible? I didn't expect you to agree with it, or even understand it, because I'm only explaining what I mean by those terms. I certainly don't have to explain what I mean in terms of Kantian fantasies. You believe in all sorts of nonsense, like ineffable spirits and God, but I don't insist, "You're going to have to explain how that's even possible," as if you could.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:36 am
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:17 am Since all of physical existents, living physical enitites, conscious living entities, and volitionally conscious human beings all exist and have the natures they have independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of them (with the exception of course of individual's own consciousness and knowledge) the metaphysical includes all physical, living, conscious, and rational entities. All physical attributes, life attributes, consciousness attributes, and mind attributes are perfectly natural metaphysical attributes of the same ontological existence, but are independent attributes. Call that whatever you like. Quadruplism perhaps.
Hmmm..."Quadruplism." That suggests you believe in four different "substances"?
It's a joke. I'm making fun of your belief that anything with more than one kind of attribute requires a different kind of existence.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:36 am I know of nobody who's suggested such a thing. I see a bunch of contradictory claims, but I don't think I can make heads or tails of them.

Like, I can't even begin to unpack the claim, "volitionally conscious human beings all exist and have the natures they have independent of anyone's knowledge or consciousness of them (with the exception of course of individual's own consciousness and knowledge)." Why "of course"? There's nothing at all obvious about the exception or the reasons for it.

... And why should we think that nothing about "natures" (whatever is meant by that word) is "independent of" everyone's knowledge except the individuals?
It may be shockingly difficult for your intellect to manage, but any eight-year old would understand one cannot be independent of their own consciousness. Everyone else's consciousness exists indepenently of mine, but my own cannot be independent of itself. Duh!
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:36 am Nope. There's something that either you're explaining very badly, or this is just not coherent in any language. I certainly can't make the claims add up.
I readily admit, I am incapable of explaining many adult concepts to someone with a child's intellect that still believes in fairy tales.

I'm not surprised you cannot understand it. It's difficult to understand something when it's your intention not to. I just do not believe in your dualistic contingent existence because there is absolutely no evidence for it. I do not count the imaginations of the superstitious as evidence. I don't care that you do.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:50 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:36 am
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:17 am
If you read more carefully you know I only believe in one complete no-contingent metaphysical existence.
Oh. You don't believe in the physical world, or in materials? You're an Idealist, then?
I have to ask you if you suffer from short term memory or are you just unable to follow a complex sentence? How can you say, "you don't believe in the physical world, after reading the following:
If you read more carefully you know I only believe in one complete no-contingent metaphysical existence.
No, I see what you're saying. You're saying that reality is "non-contingent," which must mean necessary, and, you say "metaphysical." So that means "not-merely-physical." But since it's only "one," you say, that means "not physical," because otherwise, it would be dualistic, and anyway, you say you're not a Dualist. And you say above, or imply, that you do believe in "the physical world."

So you've said reality is metaphysical but physical. And it's not dualistic, but is metaphysical and physical. And there's only one. But you believe in both aspects of reality... :? And both are "non-contingent." But they're still only one, and have one "nature." Erk.

And then you blame me for not understanding how to make your claim make sense.

I've got all of that. I just think it makes no sense.
Well, I'm sorry, there is not much I can do about your mental deficiency to understand complex concepts.
How about making them non-contradictory and coherent on their own terms? That would help.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:34 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:50 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:36 am
Oh. You don't believe in the physical world, or in materials? You're an Idealist, then?
I have to ask you if you suffer from short term memory or are you just unable to follow a complex sentence? How can you say, "you don't believe in the physical world, after reading the following:
If you read more carefully you know I only believe in one complete no-contingent metaphysical existence.
No, I see what you're saying. You're saying that reality is "non-contingent," which must mean necessary, and, you say "metaphysical." So that means "not-merely-physical." But since it's only "one," you say, that means "not physical," because otherwise, it would be dualistic, and anyway, you say you're not a Dualist. And you say above, or imply, that you do believe in "the physical world."

So you've said reality is metaphysical but physical. And it's not dualistic, but is metaphysical and physical. And there's only one. But you believe in both aspects of reality... :? And both are "non-contingent." But they're still only one, and have one "nature." Erk.

And then you blame me for not understanding how to make your claim make sense.

I've got all of that. I just think it makes no sense.
Well, I'm sorry, there is not much I can do about your mental deficiency to understand complex concepts.
How about making them non-contradictory and coherent on their own terms? That would help.
There is one metaphysical (ontological) natural existence. It includes all physical entities, which includes all living entities, all conscious entities, and all volitional (human) entities. They all exists and are what they are and are not contingent on anything else for their existence or their nature (i.e. whatever attributes, qualities, characteristics, or properties they have).

Entities are differentiated from one another by their different attributes. Some of those attributes are: "physical attributes," "life," "consciousness," and "volitional consciousness." All physical entities have physical qualities. Some physical entities also have the life attribute and are called organisms. Some organism have the additional attribute of consciousnesss, as well as the physical and life attributes. A very small number of conscious organisms have the additional attribute of volitional consciousness, as well as the physical and life attributes.

I have no idea why you are struggling to understand this. You don't have to agree with it, but I cannot imagine why you do not understand it.

Perhaps I need to emphasize the distinction between entities and attributes. An entities attributes are what an entity is, but the attributes are not themselves independent existents. Attributes certainly exist and are real but they only exist as attributes of entities. Sans entities, there are no attributes.

Every entity has many attributes. Mere physical entities have mass, color, shape, size, temperature, charge, etc. No entity has all possible attributes. Some have magnetic properties, others do not. Almost all entities have different states, such as solid, liquid, gas. Some have life as a property. Most do not.

Attributes do not arise out of or emerge form each other. Heat may be described in terms of mass (or momentum) because it is motion, but size does not emerge from states or magnetic properties from weight, nor life from any physical property.

I'm trying to keep this simple. I don't expect you to agree with this view. It's not the one you have been taught, and heaven forbid you should think for yourself.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:41 pm There is one metaphysical (ontological) natural existence. It includes all physical entities
Impossible.

If there is "one metaphysical natural existence," then there is nothing "physical" in existence, by definition. You rule out of existence in the first phrase what you rule back in in the second.

That's just self-contradiction.
I have no idea why you are struggling to understand this.

As above: it self-contradicts.

If you had written," there are two existences, the metaphysical and the physical," I'd have understood you. Or if you had written, "There is one metaphysical existence, and no physical reality," again, I would understand you.

But you can't have both, unless you're going to be a Dualist...which you refuse to say you are.
Mere physical entities have mass, color, shape, size, temperature, charge, etc.

So now reality is "physical." Which, if there is "one," means also that there are no metaphysical realities. But you have said above that there are...
I'm trying to keep this simple.
I'm trying to see how it can be coherent.
I don't expect you to agree with this view. It's not the one you have been taught, and heaven forbid you should think for yourself.
No, that's not it. "Lay not that unction to your soul," as the Bard wrote. I'm thinking for myself just fine. I know enough not to accept manifest contradictions, and to understand that they indicate the incoherence of the speaker...or else, his lack of ability to explain himself properly. But I think it's the first.

It's not coherent to say "In a one-only reality, there are physical and metaphysical entities that actually exist." That just can't be rendered cogent, because it contradicts. I could even cut you some slack if you were under the misconception that "attributes" were the only metaphysical enties. But you don't. You say you think that minds, consciousnesses, indivdiuals, and so forth exist. So there's just no way I to make it work. "Mind" is not an "attribute." It's an existand in its own right. A dead person still has a brain, but no mind left. A brain is divisible into bits, but no mind is. "Consciousness" is not an "attribute" in a physical sense, like "redness" or "weight" is, and it has neither of either, of course. And identity may be recognized by way of attribution, but is not an "attribute" itself. A thing's "identity," so to speak, inheres in the nature of what-it-is, not in the mind of the attributor. If I think Henry is a herring, that does not mean he's a herring. He is who he is, regardless of my "attributions."

So there are metaphysical realities, and they are not physical realities -- according to you. But you also say you think they're "one."

Now, surely you can see how obviously the critique follows. That is, you can surely count to two. And physical and metaphysical are two, not one.

So I think you'll have to recognize the flaw in that belief system, or find some way of reconciling yourself with Dualism.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:41 pm There is one metaphysical (ontological) natural existence. It includes all physical entities
Impossible.

If there is "one metaphysical natural existence," then there is nothing "physical" in existence, by definition.
What definition? I'm using metaphysics in its original philosophical meaning, "the 'science' that studied 'being as such,' and, 'that which does not change,'" in the Aristotelian sense, not in it's perverted modern-day mystical meaning. Leave it out and make it, "natural ontological," existence. In philosophy, "metaphysical," never excluded the physical. If anything, it was an attempt to explain the physical (though not very successfully).
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:41 pm I have no idea why you are struggling to understand this.

As above: it self-contradicts.

If you had written," there are two existences, the metaphysical and the physical," I'd have understood you. Or if you had written, "There is one metaphysical existence, and no physical reality," again, I would understand you.
That's because you been brainwashed into accepting the religious meaning of metaphysical as something, "Immaterial or supernatural," which was never the meaning in philosophy. Even the dictionary gets that right:

Metaphysics: a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.

Your whole argument is based on a false idea of, "metaphysics," which is the study of the ultimate nature of existence or being. What I mean by metaphysical is what Aristotle meant, and every philosopher meant up to and including Locke.

The idea that, "metaphysics," is about the supernatural or mystical is not a philosophical concept, it is a religious one. There are not two different kinds of existence. There is only one existence that includes everything that exists with all the variety of existents there are and it is not contingent on anything else.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:06 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:19 am God is more than the sum of His parts.
Your god has "parts"? :shock:
God is not only differentiated into parts i.e. the temporal world, but is also whole i.e. eternity.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:46 pmThe idea that, "metaphysics," is about the supernatural or mystical is not a philosophical concept, it is a religious one. There are not two different kinds of existence. There is only one existence that includes everything that exists with all the variety of existents there are and it is not contingent on anything else.
Well, let's play along. Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that we don't contest your view that "metaphysics" iis simply a way of saying "physics." It's still not clear to me why you want to use the term "meta-"at all, since you've now essentially made "physics" the total explanation. Why use two words for that which, according to you, is only actually "one"? :shock:

However, there's a further problem: namely, that "physics" are contingent. Physical stuff can always be other-that-it-is, and doesn't "necessarily" have to exists at all. So it's not clear to me at all what you can mean by "not contingent on anything else," since all physical stuff is certainly contingent.

Meanwhile, you still have no explanation for things like mind, consciousness, identity, etc., unless you squeeze them into your "physics." Good luck making them fit. They don't even have the properties of physical phenomena.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:06 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:19 am God is more than the sum of His parts.
Your god has "parts"? :shock:
God is not only differentiated into parts i.e. the temporal world, but is also whole i.e. eternity.
Oh. You're a Pantheist? You think you're "part of God," and so is everything?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:46 pmThe idea that, "metaphysics," is about the supernatural or mystical is not a philosophical concept, it is a religious one. There are not two different kinds of existence. There is only one existence that includes everything that exists with all the variety of existents there are and it is not contingent on anything else.
Well, let's play along. Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that we don't contest your view that "metaphysics" iis simply a way of saying "physics."
No, I'm not going to play your game of switching meanings. The alternative to metaphysical meaning, "supernatural," is not, "physical."

Just because you assume everything that is not, "physical," must be some other kind of existence (as almost everyone else does today or else believes there is only the physical), does not mean that is the only possible way to understand the nature of existence. It's not how I understand it, and how I understand it eliminates both dualism and supernaturalism.

I don't care if you agree with that view or not, but if you are going to attempt to refute it, you at least must know what it is. I don't think you can, because you cannot get over your own prejudiced dualist supernaturalist view of reality. You don't have to change your view, just don't try to understand my view in terms of yours.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:27 pm
It's still not clear to me why you want to use the term "meta-"at all, since you've now essentially made "physics" the total explanation. Why use two words for that which, according to you, is only actually "one"?
I didn't make it up. If you bothered with the link I provided you'd know that's the word philosophy has used continuously to address questions relative to existence. I've already (twice now) suggested the word be abandoned.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:46 pm
However, there's a further problem: namely, that "physics" are contingent. Physical stuff can always be other-than-it-is, and doesn't "necessarily" have to exists at all. So it's not clear to me at all what you can mean by "not contingent on anything else," since all physical stuff is certainly contingent.
You believe it is. On the face of it, to say what is could be something different is absurd. What is, is, what is. It's the same stupid meaningless question, why is there something rather than nothing? It's logically impossible for what is to be anything other than what it is.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:27 pmThe idea
Meanwhile, you still have no explanation for things like mind, consciousness, identity, etc., unless you squeeze them into your "physics."{/quote}
How many times do I have to say it. Life, consciousness, and mind are not physical attributes. They are not things, not enitites, not substances. They are attributes of entities, like mass, temperature, momentum, size, and shape (which are physical attributes). Life, consciousness, and mind are additional attributes to the physical attributes in those entities that have them.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:47 pm The alternative to metaphysical meaning, "supernatural," is not, "physical."
If that's true, then you still think there are ontolgically two things in the universe: the physical and...whatever else you try to call it now. But if you believe in both, you're a Dualist.
I don't care if you agree with that view or not,

It's not me. It's maths.
I've already (twice now) suggested the word be abandoned.
No problem. Just tell me what other word you want to use to describe things like minds, consciousness, etc... We'll use it. And it will still be Dualism.
It's logically impossible for what is to be anything other than what it is.
That's identity. It's one of those not-physical things.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:52 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:47 pm The alternative to metaphysical meaning, "supernatural," is not, "physical."
If that's true, then you still think there are ontolgically two things in the universe: the physical and...whatever else you try to call it now. But if you believe in both, you're a Dualist.
I don't care if you agree with that view or not,

It's not me. It's maths.
I've already (twice now) suggested the word be abandoned.
No problem. Just tell me what other word you want to use to describe things like minds, consciousness, etc... We'll use it. And it will still be Dualism.
It's logically impossible for what is to be anything other than what it is.
That's identity. It's one of those not-physical things.
I don't want to tell you anything. I made the mistake of thinking you were sincerely interested in understanding my view. You have convinced me your only interest is in promoting your own superstitious agenda. You pay no attention anything I say, no matter how often I explain something is not my view, you plow ahead accusing me of what I never said, implied, or believe. It is an extremely dishonest way of dealing with others. I certainly understand why others become frustrated with you, though it doesn't bother me. I'm just not interested in helping you promote your deceit any further.

If it makes you feel good to call me names, like, "dualist," go right ahead. I certainly distinguish between the ontological (all that exists independent of human minds) and the epistemological (all that only exists in and as the product of human minds, like language, mathematics, logic, history, literature, philosophy, and science.) You can call that dualism, if you like, but I certainly don't see how it helps your case. Your view of dualism is of something separate and distinct form the ontological or natural existence. I think epistemological existence is only possible to ontological existence. There is no epistemology, language, mathematics, logic, history, literature, philosophy, or science, without the living physical organisms that produce them, human beings. The primary difference between the ontological and epistemological is, the ontological is about all there is that can be known, the epistemological is about knowing all there is.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:22 am I made the mistake of thinking you were sincerely interested in understanding my view.
Well, I was sincerely interested in knowing whether or not your view could be right, too. And that means that I wanted to see if it was cogent. If it is self-contradictory, the "mistake" is not in my interest level, nor in my sincerity, but rather in the explanation -- or in the theory itself. And it seems to me, it's the latter.
You have convinced me your only interest is in promoting your own superstitious agenda.
This I have not done here, whatever you think of my alleged "agenda." All I've done is ask you to explain yours. I've not offered mine in return.
You pay no attention anything I say, no matter how often I explain something is not my view, you plow ahead accusing me of what I never said, implied, or believe.
Actually, I paid very close attention. And I found basic faults in the logic, as you explained it to me. So I certainly wasn't asleep on that.
If it makes you feel good to call me names, like, "dualist," go right ahead.
It's not a "name," or insult, and it's not so I can "feel good." Rather, it seems to me the inevitable label for your theory as you describe it, since you insist you believe both in physical and non-physical realities. Again, that's on you, not me.
I certainly distinguish between the ontological (all that exists independent of human minds) and the epistemological (all that only exists in and as the product of human minds, like language, mathematics, logic, history, literature, philosophy, and science.) You can call that dualism, if you like, but I certainly don't see how it helps your case.
It's not about "my case," RC. I'm simply trying to figure out what you are. And though you repeatedly use the word "one" to describe your beliefs, as if you were a Monist of some kind, when you turn to explaining them, you inevitably assert some sort of Dualism -- of the material and the immaterial in reality.
There is no epistemology, language, mathematics, logic, history, literature, philosophy, or science, without the living physical organisms that produce them, human beings.
I can't see why you think that's true. I mean, if you use those words only to describe them as distinct disciplines, I can. But if you mean that, say logic or mathematical operations are reflective only of human imaginings, I think that's manifestly wrong. Mathematics works because the objective world is mathematical in nature. And logic works because the empirical world is logical in structure. Science works because of the empirical nature of reality, which was exactly the way physics or biology or chemistry still worked before F. Bacon discovered the scientific method.

There were tortoises in Galapagos before Darwin arrived...that is, unless you think they magically materialized when his foot first hit the beach.

Your assumption is like saying, "There was no North America until it was inhabited." The truth is that there might have been nothing by that name, but the thing to which the name refers pre-existed the naming of it. Reality is not dependent on human cognition; rather, human cognition is always working madly to try to catch up with what's already there.

Humans don't just invent knowledge. Sometimes they also discover things. What that means is that find out how the world already works, in some way. But it would work that way whether any human had discovered it did or not.

(You see? I didn't even have to introduce the premise that God has knowledge, or that ontology is established by Him. The objection works, even if you don't share my worldview.)
The primary difference between the ontological and epistemological is, the ontological is about all there is that can be known, the epistemological is about knowing all there is.
Not quite. The ontological is about what exists to BE known (or not yet known), and the epistemological is only a description of what we happen to know about it at a given time and place -- which is never more than partial and flawed.
Post Reply