Free Will

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Free Will

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:50 amHumans 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.)
Objection....Who told you you were Human? Who knows they are Human?

And try to answer those questions without introducing the premise that Human has knowledge,or that ontology is established by Him.






which is never more than partial and flawed.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will

Post by Belinda »

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.
Immanuel, physicalism(immaterialism) is subsumed under ontology which is a subdivision of metaphysics.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will

Post by Belinda »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:50 amHumans 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.)
Objection....Who told you you were Human? Who knows they are Human?

And try to answer those questions without introducing the premise that Human has knowledge,or that ontology is established by Him.








which is never more than partial and flawed.
I refer particularly to DAM's "who told you you are human?"
DAM shows her preference for Vedanta metaphysics is alive and well. She also shows, perhaps unintentionally, that Vedanta metaphysics is like European idealism(immaterialism).
The experiencing self (jīva) and the transcendental self of the Universe (ātman) are in reality identical (both are Brahman), though the individual self seems different as space within a container seems different from space as such.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Advaita Vedanta.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Humans don't just invent knowledge. Sometimes they also discover things.
This shows fence-sitting. Either God absolutely orders events, or there is a plenum of possibility that is accessible only to conscious centres of experience. But not both .
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Free Will

Post by Dontaskme »

Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:28 am
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:50 amHumans 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.)
Objection....Who told you you were Human? Who knows they are Human?

And try to answer those questions without introducing the premise that Human has knowledge,or that ontology is established by Him.








which is never more than partial and flawed.
I refer particularly to DAM's "who told you you are human?"
DAM shows her preference for Vedanta metaphysics is alive and well. She also shows, perhaps unintentionally, that Vedanta metaphysics is like European idealism(immaterialism).
The experiencing self (jīva) and the transcendental self of the Universe (ātman) are in reality identical (both are Brahman), though the individual self seems different as space within a container seems different from space as such.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Advaita Vedanta.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Humans don't just invent knowledge. Sometimes they also discover things.
This shows fence-sitting. Either God absolutely orders events, or there is a plenum of possibility that is accessible only to conscious centres of experience. But not both .
Well said Belinda.

God …I love intelligent women.

It’s normal for men to feel redundant… :(
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:28 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:06 pm
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?
I am a panentheist sort of. I do not regard God as a big Person.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:50 am
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.
You could have saved us a lot of time and discussion by saying up front all your knowledge is, "partial and flawed." Why in the world would anyone even consider the opinions of someone who admits they do not know anything for certain. You certainly express your ideas as though you are convinced they're true when all the time, they are at best, only likely. Well, so much for that.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote:
Why in the world would anyone even consider the opinions of someone who admits they do not know anything for certain.
In order to learn something one did not know before?

The nature of learning is dynamic, and open ended.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:50 pm RCSaunders wrote:
Why in the world would anyone even consider the opinions of someone who admits they do not know anything for certain.
In order to learn something one did not know before?

The nature of learning is dynamic, and open ended.
Is that how you learn what you think you know? How can you learn anything from someone who doesn't know anything?

To learn, one must use their own mind to think and judge the evidence the world makes available. Just learning from others is gullibility, not knowledge. Most people confuse what they've accepted from their teachers with knowledge and have never had an original thought in their life.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Free Will

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:50 amHumans 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.)
Objection....
Not paying attention, DAM. Too much empty drama for me.
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 11:53 am You could have saved us a lot of time and discussion by saying up front all your knowledge is, "partial and flawed."
Human knowledge. Not just mine. Yours too. You may not know it, but that's how it is.
Why in the world would anyone even consider the opinions of someone who admits they do not know anything for certain.
Because those who imagine they know empirical things for certain -- i.e. beyond possibility of doubt -- are epistemologically and scientifically naive at best, propagandists at worst. So, on the contrary, don't listen to anybody who tells you he's absolutely certain: he's a naive or dishonest.

However, pay attention to those who say that their empirical knowledge is of higher probability. High probability, though not the same as absolute certainty, is a very good thing, and is the only measure to which empirical / scientific knowlledge can attain.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Will

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:41 pm Because those who imagine they know empirical things for certain -- i.e. beyond possibility of doubt -- are epistemologically and scientifically naive at best ...
There you go again, assuming what others think or mean. I have no use for what is called empiricism, especially as you define it. My knowledge is not based on some philosophical idea--but there is no point explaining it to someone who is certain of nothing--except that he is certain he is certain of nothing.
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 4:49 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:41 pm Because those who imagine they know empirical things for certain -- i.e. beyond possibility of doubt -- are epistemologically and scientifically naive at best ...
There you go again, assuming what others think or mean.
Not at all. One doesn't have to "assume" that all inductive knowledge is probabilistic: it is, by definition. So long as one knows what "inductive" involves, one knows that.

Empirical or scientific knowledge IS all inductive.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 1:49 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:50 pm RCSaunders wrote:
Why in the world would anyone even consider the opinions of someone who admits they do not know anything for certain.
In order to learn something one did not know before?

The nature of learning is dynamic, and open ended.
Is that how you learn what you think you know? How can you learn anything from someone who doesn't know anything?

To learn, one must use their own mind to think and judge the evidence the world makes available. Just learning from others is gullibility, not knowledge. Most people confuse what they've accepted from their teachers with knowledge and have never had an original thought in their life.
You learn from somebody who knows nothing by hearing and paying attention to any questions they may ask. You can also learn from somebody who knows nothing by seeing what they do and how they conduct themselves.

How do you distinguish between gullibility and keeping an open mind?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Free Will

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:36 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:50 amHumans 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.)
Objection....
Not paying attention, DAM. Too much empty drama for me.
Did it tickle your big fat ego to tell me that.

You could have just ignored me like your partner in crime Henry does, but you like to crack that whip don’t you.

Truth is, you cannot answer the very hard questions I ask you can you can’t?

Just admit you don’t know the answer when I ask you ….who told you you are a human?

A real man would answer or just say I don’t know. But we all know you are as fake as fuck.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Free Will

Post by Belinda »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 5:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 3:36 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 8:56 am

Objection....
Not paying attention, DAM. Too much empty drama for me.
Did it tickle your big fat ego to tell me that.

You could have just ignored me like your partner in crime Henry does, but you like to crack that whip don’t you.

Truth is, you cannot answer the very hard questions I ask you can you can’t?

Just admit you don’t know the answer when I ask you ….who told you you are a human?

A real man would answer or just say I don’t know. But we all know you are as fake as fuck.
It would be nice if Immanuel Can even understands what the question means, and its import for philosophy, but I guess he does not understand the question.
Post Reply