Sia wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Sia wrote:
I believe that would be our personality, which i believe is material as our human flesh - in the sense of bodying our material brain.
Again, this is not the soul, as i were stating many times

Yeah you stated it many times, but you're presenting it here like it's a hard fact, without much to back it up. You said the soul is who we are (our 'self') and who we will always be for eternity, as though there is some bit of us which is always us. What I learned is that one's 'self' is continually changing. You choose here to separate out from 'self' what you refer to as 'personality', but that's just arbitrary and is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the same thing you are - the 'self'. Do you have any evidence for the soul, or is it just something you read in a holy book?

I'll make this in bold so perhaps it gets trough quicker.
I do not think the personality is within the consciousness.
And i believe that our personality will be lost upon our death. The soul is our 'self' NOT how we identify ourselves, but who we were created as by the holy spirit.

So we have a "self" (soul) and a personality? And they are two different things? Multiple personality disorder.

The soul is who we are and who we always will be, but personality and memories are physical? But personality decides how we behave and feel, and it is this which is supposed to determine our post-death spiritual fate.

That's just relegated the entire idea of "soul" to effectively non-functional and non-existance. Well done, Sia, you've just argued yourself into utter irrelevence.

We, as a race, slaughter all kinds of animal everyday. We contribute to the mass slaughtering of these creatures. As soon as a Materialists tell himself or others that there are no objective moral values, and no purpose to anything, he gives people the right to do as they please whether it be killing this person or raping.

I don't need magic to define a purpose for my life, nor do I need it to define my own morality. I thought it was me that was downgrading the significance of humanity, not you?

This is the animal level were we say "Well, they're animals. Everything they do has no purpose".

We ARE animals. I don't think that the truth about the natural world should be covered up for fear of how people will react. Animals do plenty of things with purpose in mind, this characterization of the animal world can once again be put down to your lack of understanding of it.

You see, Sia. What adults tend to realise is that in life one learns to define their purpose by themselves. If you are so concerned with people losing sight of some ultimate purpose to the universe could you please tell us what this ultimate purpose might be and why you are correct in thinking it so?

The whole reason that the majority of people are beginning to think this, is duo to mass-media-brainwashing that makes us worth less and less. In the end, we will likely become slaves of the system without any human rights, if we as a race keep downgrading ourselves. Remember, it was Christianity and Judaism that gave us these rights above the animals.
We are special, and we know it.

I think you'll find that it is you who has been taught to stick to the knowledge contained in a single book that was written long before the human project of learning about our world had really began to take off. You have told us on this very thread that consulting others for their knowledge, including the meanings of words is to be discouraged. If you think that knowledge is the mass media's way of making you a slave to the system and the only way to combat it is to avoid learning anything, well done, you are off to a fantastic start.

Why are you so afraid of learning anything about the world? Do you think your deity would be proud of your ignorance?

Sia wrote:As soon as a Materialists tell himself or others that there are no objective moral values, and no purpose to anything, he gives people the right to do as they please whether it be killing this person or raping. This is the animal level were we say "Well, they're animals. Everything they do has no purpose". The whole reason that the majority of people are beginning to think this, is duo to mass-media-brainwashing that makes us worth less and less. In the end, we will likely become slaves of the system without any human rights, if we as a race keep downgrading ourselves. Remember, it was Christianity and Judaism that gave us these rights above the animals.

If we're on a downward spiral to losing our human rights, how come humans, as a whole, have better protected human rights than at any previous time in history? How did Christianity and Judaism give us the basic right not to be bought as slaves, for example, when the Torah specifically condones this human rights abomination (Exodus 21, amongst many others)?

Sia wrote:

chairman bill wrote:
How would you differentiate between consciousness & personality?

That's a very narrow way of questioning someone. I am pretty sure i do not agree to your world-view, and the mere fact that i believe the soul is the 'self, contrary to your belief in whatever Discovery channel tells you, should be evidence of such.

I don't need the Discovery Channel - I'm a psychologist, so tend to get my science stuff from books & academic articles in learned, peer-reviewed journals. Funny that, eh?

Now, what my question has to do with world-views/paradigms, I'm not too sure. I thought, given your pronouncements about consciousness & now personality, you might differentiate between the two. I was interested in your post ...

Sia wrote:... What i mean by consciousness being the soul, is that it is not physical, exactly as the soul. It is who we are, without referring to our personality.

So I take it from this, that you are contending that consciousness is like the soul in that it has no physical basis - is that right? So our consciousness is not physically determined?

Now, I'm interested in what you mean when you say it is who we are; do you mean consciousness or the soul? You say, 'without referring to our personality', and I'm trying to be clear in my mind what you mean here. You need to be clear about these terms & their relationship to one another. Are you suggesting that we have a consciousness & personality, but seperate to these is a soul? You seem to be suggesting that the soul is a non-material thing, but that consciousness is too; so are the two things linked? And our soul is 'us', but in a way distinct from our personality? Do we need consciousness in order to possess a soul? How does our soul-self differ from our personality? Given that our personality must have some part to play in how we conduct ourselves, including matters of religious belief, if the soul is not our personality, but some other 'self', how come the soul suffers for what our personality does or does not do/believe? And how do issues of consciousness, personality & soul impact on our understanding of acquired brain injury?

Sia wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Sia wrote:
I happen to have a little dog myself I guess we call it a "Gravhund" they do mean something to me, obviously. I respect animal as i respect any human. However, downgrading our own values to the animal level, as many people including yourself does, is never a good thing to do, if you ask me.

What is this "animal level" that you speak of? What, exactly, is wrong with my values? What are my values, and how do you know?

We, as a race, slaughter all kinds of animal everyday. We contribute to the mass slaughtering of these creatures.

Yes, both believers and non-believers alike. Though, vegetarians are found in both groups. Funny how a belief in an immortal soul isn't preventing people from doing any bad things, isn't it?

As soon as a Materialists tell himself or others that there are no objective moral values, and no purpose to anything, he gives people the right to do as they please whether it be killing this person or raping.

I have as much of a purpose in my life, and as much moral values, as anyone else. My life matters, it has meaning, it doesn't have to be handed down from a space-wizard for it to do so.

This is the animal level were we say "Well, they're animals. Everything they do has no purpose".

The fact that they don't have cosmic purpose, doesn't mean they have no purpose. Purpose and meaning doesn't have to be handed down by an immortal mind.

The whole reason that the majority of people are beginning to think this, is duo to mass-media-brainwashing that makes us worth less and less.

Absolute bullshit. Mass media isn't teaching us we are worth less, ever. Please find me a mainstream media article teaching us we are worthless and have no purpose. You're making shit up again. The only brainwashing that is evident here is when the religious indoctrination taking place, when people like you have your brain programmed to think that your life is meaningless if no god exists.

In the end, we will likely become slaves of the system without any human rights, if we as a race keep downgrading ourselves.

Nonsense, pure made up paranoid delusion.
I think you're forgetting what book it is that contains rules on how to keep slaves.

Remember, it was Christianity and Judaism that gave us these rights above the animals.

No, it was ourselves. And it was our emancipation from the tyranny of religion that allowed the development of science and medicine, which as improved the living conditions of so many countless of millions of lives.

We are special, and we know it.

Sure, anything that has the capacity to suffer is special. So much for the need for a god-given morality. There are plenty of people who believe in the same god you do, who are perfectly okay with killing helpless animals, keeping slaves etc.

Sia wrote:
We, as a race, slaughter all kinds of animal everyday. We contribute to the mass slaughtering of these creatures. As soon as a Materialists tell himself or others that there are no objective moral values, and no purpose to anything, he gives people the right to do as they please whether it be killing this person or raping. This is the animal level were we say "Well, they're animals. Everything they do has no purpose". The whole reason that the majority of people are beginning to think this, is duo to mass-media-brainwashing that makes us worth less and less. In the end, we will likely become slaves of the system without any human rights, if we as a race keep downgrading ourselves. Remember, it was Christianity and Judaism that gave us these rights above the animals.
We are special, and we know it.

Why do you believe that materialists can't have objective morals? Your understanding of morality must be as poor as your understanding of atheism and science.

Rumraket wrote:Btw: Chicken! Duck! Goose! Dove! Eagle!

such avian language!

Paul wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Btw: Chicken! Duck! Goose! Dove! Eagle!

such avian language!

Really fowl language.

Sia wrote: "If the brain is only I/O then we by definition do not have any 'free-will', perhaps that was what you were getting at - that we don't have 'free-will'?"

I see you found a way to get your foot in the door for another argument of of 'free-will" and "soul" bull shit.

Damn, I put a lot of thought into my post and was hoping we would explore more of what the origins of consciousness might be, not another digression into the world of 'woo.'

hackenslash wrote:I hate to agree with ughaibu, because it's against my religion. However; he is correct. What he's actually saying is that winding back time to t=0 entails t=0 being fixed, thereby smuggling determinism into the thought experiment. Thus the thought experiment, designed to test for determinism/freedom, inherently contains determinism before you even get to the point where any alleged choice takes place, because it always begins from a determined state.

That's how I read it, anyway. If this isn't a fair representation, then I have no idea what he's trying to say.

OK, I get it now. However, I still think that's irrelevant to my point. My original argument dealt with the question of whether a person could make a decision other than the one he made in a particular situation, if all of the conditions of that situation were replicated. It was ughaibu who introduced the idea of "winding back time" and I accepted that because it seemed a reasonable shorthand for the concept I was using. But I now realize that was an error on my part. The two are not identical. Replicating the conditions that existed at the time a decision was made does not necessitate "winding back time."

Anyway, I realize this is probably old news by now. Pardon the interruption. Let's get back to the Sia Comedy Show.

Shrunk wrote: Replicating the conditions that existed at the time a decision was made does not necessitate "winding back time."

Then it's not at all clear what you meant. In any case, as I originally wrote in my explication of the relevant principles of science, nothing stronger than "all things being equal" is needed. So, for example, if my actions consist of typing numbers and posting them on the internet, as long as my computer, internet connection and body continue functioning, all relevant factors are in place.

ughaibu wrote:

Shrunk wrote: Replicating the conditions that existed at the time a decision was made does not necessitate "winding back time."

Then it's not at all clear what you meant. In any case, as I originally wrote in my explication of the relevant principles of science, nothing stronger than "all things being equal" is needed. So, for example, if my actions consist of typing numbers and posting them on the internet, as long as my computer, internet connection and body continue functioning, all relevant factors are in place.

Yeah. Then we put every single factor and condition in the uinverse in exactly the state it was before you started typing, and see if you do exactly the same thing.

We can't actually perform this experiment, of course, which is the point. Until we can, we lack scientific evidence for the existence of free will. We just have evidence for having made conscious choices, which is not the same thing.

Shrunk wrote:

ughaibu wrote:the relevant principles of science, nothing stronger than "all things being equal" is needed. So, for example, if my actions consist of typing numbers and posting them on the internet, as long as my computer, internet connection and body continue functioning, all relevant factors are in place.

Then we put every single factor and condition in the uinverse in exactly the state it was before you started typing, and see if you do exactly the same thing.

For the umpteenth fucking time, there is no claim that anybody is doing otherwise, or any similar shit. We do not need circumstances to be repeated with any more exactness than we would for any other procedure. You are again engaging in special pleading to deny free will if you insist on special levels of repetition.

Shrunk wrote:we lack scientific evidence for the existence of free will. We just have evidence for having made conscious choices, which is not the same thing.

We can observe the fucking thing. Science is dependent on observation. You can reject one or more essential principles of science or you can accept that free will is observable.

ughaibu wrote:

Fallible wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Offered "cake or death?", you dont know which choice to make?

That's not free will to make any choice, that's an offer to pick one of only two options.

It's an example of a choice, which means it is a member of the set of all choices. "Any choice" presumably means any member of the set of all choices, doesn't it?
To repeat, an agent has free will on occasions when that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.

I'm a bazillion pages behind, but thought I'd reply to this part of the debate....

What is an "agent"? Is a particle an agent? I assume you would say no. Is a collection of two particles an agent then? Is a collection of billions of particles that looks like a human an agent? What is the difference between these different collections in terms of their 'agency'?

rEvolutionist wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

Fallible wrote:That's not free will to make any choice, that's an offer to pick one of only two options.

It's an example of a choice, which means it is a member of the set of all choices. "Any choice" presumably means any member of the set of all choices, doesn't it?
To repeat, an agent has free will on occasions when that agent makes and enacts a conscious choice from amongst realisable alternatives.

I'm a bazillion pages behind, but thought I'd reply to this part of the debate....

What is an "agent"? Is a particle an agent? I assume you would say no. Is a collection of two particles an agent then? Is a collection of billions of particles that looks like a human an agent? What is the difference between these different collections in terms of their 'agency'?

I use an agent to mean anything that makes a decision i.e. it has the ability to detect, create and/or resolve decision problems.

Yeah, but this gets to the heart of the determinism vs agent of free-will debate. If one particle can't "detect" or "resolve" decisions, then why is a billion particles any different? What's the extra special sauce that allows a billions particles to start doing this stuff. This is why I believe free will is an illusion. All of our choices are made first in our un/sub-conscious mind well before we even have any conscious thought about them. Consciousness and free-will are an after event. A billion particles are just as deterministic as one particle. No need to invent some special agent that has free-will.

rEvolutionist wrote:What is an "agent"? Is a particle an agent? I assume you would say no. Is a collection of two particles an agent then? Is a collection of billions of particles that looks like a human an agent? What is the difference between these different collections in terms of their 'agency'?

As we're talking about conscious choice, all relevant agents are, at least, conscious.

I'll direct you to the post directly above your one. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p1044952

So, which principle(s) of science do you give up, for the pleasure of maintaining your metaphysical stance?