Only truth and logic exists

Author: Benjamin ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 115
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    I want to propose a new perspective to look at reality


    Why truth must exist
    1. If the claim "truth does not exist" is correct, it is a truth that exists
    2. Thus "Truth does not exist" contradicts its own statement
    3. If the statement "I exist" is objectively a truth I could not claim that
    Why logic must exist
    1. A logical argument against logic is contradictory
    2. An illogical argument against logic would be subjective
    3. This is a forum, logic must be present

    Definitions:
    • Information: reduction of uncertainty regarding reality
    • Truth: Information that corresponds to reality
    • Logic: A function which uses known information to create new information


    Premises:
    1. Nothing can exist that can not be described by specific truth-claims
    2. No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements
    3. Conclusion: Nothing can exist that cannot be described using truth and logic


    1. Nothing can exist that can not be described by specific truth-claims

    This is really a no-brainer. If something cannot be described it cannot exist. By "describe" I do not intend to limit the possibilities, claiming that "only what humans can understand" can exist. I mean that if even God, if he exists, can not describe something using precise truth-statements, they literally cannot exist since they are not true.


    2. No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements

    This one is interesting. I first want to explain what that statement means. Logic takes at least two truths/bits/numbers and "creates" a new truth/bit/number. The nature of logic is that it is 100% reliable and predictable. So far, science has proven that anything we thought of as "not logical", are just emerging features of logical systems. Randomness is just a product of complex physical laws that are nearly impossible to predict. Some mathematical functions and irrational numbers are used in order to "calculate" randomness inside our computers. We also know that chemistry is purely logical, there is no randomness or free will involved. Our brains, however, have properties of both randomness and free will, emerging features of a super complex chemical system. True randomness has never been confirmed, neither has true free will as a spirit or supernatural soul. One could believe in illogical decision-making systems like these as part of one's own faith. 

    Let me use God as an example, defined by having the ultimate free will.
    How does God make decisions, logically, random or using free will? Someone has yet to explain what free will is, if not for emerging features of randomness emerging from logic. God would be the ultimate reality, and must thus be made of ultimate truths. As shown above, only logic can satisfactory explain how truths create other truths.


    3. Conclusion: Nothing can exist that cannot be described using truth and logic


    Again, if an all-knowing God could not explain a two-sided triangle using truth and logic, such a concept could not exist. Obviously, there is no evidence that realities outside our own universe would follow the rules of logic we know, but I have yet to hear anyone claim that God or any other ultimate reality do not operate on a logical basis. Even the Bible acknowledges the fact that God is logical in nature. Now many people still believe in such concepts as randomness or free will, but they are emergent features of logical systems, just like the randomness of rolling dice is created by the 100% logical laws of physics. What is strange is that theists and atheists alike believe that either "free will" or "randomness" exists independently of logic, as if logic, free will and randomness were separated. My model would be able to explain any world view, as long as the world view can be explained using truth and logic. Contrary, if a world view cannot be described by my model, it would necessarily be either wrong, misinterpreted or incoherent.


    I understand if you are having trouble understanding this. I have spent hours and day thinking about it.



    How this theory can explain any world view:




    The ultimate reality

    Any world view must begin with the ultimate reality. This is because no argument can refute this point: some truths are ultimate. We can know with absolute certainty, that "something exists" is a truth that has been, is and will always be true. Believing otherwise would destroy the foundation of reason since no cause must be present in order for existence itself to start. Any truth that shares these properties: "1. always true 2. Not created by other truths" will be included in the term "Ultimate reality".


    Visualisation - understanding the fabric, not of the universe but really

    I want to explain how free will, randomness and computation are equally logical in nature.
    a. The laws of physics are mathematical, in other words, logical
    b. Computers, randomness and our free will all work because of the laws of physics
    c. Conclusion: different structures of truth (like atoms) create systems with different properties
    -
    The easiest way to visualise how computation, free will and randomness emerge is to use the analogy of a computer. A computer is 100% mathematical, it cannot by definition go beyond the limits of its structure. When we think about reality in terms of truth and logic, the computer analogy makes perfect sense. Why? First of all, it cannot change itself, just like the ultimate reality cannot change itself. Second of all, this makes it fairly easy to understand how it is both one and many concepts. A computer is one object, but you can divide it into RAM and CPU, and those can be divided even further. This explains why the ultimate reality can be understood as a whole (like a God for instance) but also deconstructed into small truths like "something exists". With the same computer, you can calculate random numbers, simulate the laws of physics or even simulate free will. Thus both an atheistic and theistic world view can be explained using the same model. 
    -
    If you cannot prove that free will or randomness are illogical in nature, it does not matter whether our universe was created by free will, computation or randomness, we will reach the same conclusion about logic. All of them are different structures of logical statements, even free will.
    -
    The question would no longer be "what is truth actually", but rather "what structure does the ultimate truth have?" making reasonable discussion easier.


    Dependant realities

    Some truths, like the fact that I exist, are based on other truths, namely the existence of our universe. Our universe exists because of the ultimate reality. For example, our universe exists because "something exists" is true. Dependant realities have their own truths and logical structures. The truth "humans exist" exists in our reality only, not in the ultimate reality. 


    Note:
    I am intentionally making the mistake of ignoring The Primacy of Existence. According to that model, existence is more fundamental than our ability to describe or understand it. The reason my model proposes the idea of truth and logic being more fundamental than the things they describe is simple: it allows us to debate any claim about reality, be it the ultimate, ours, metaphysics, the multiverse and so on, under the same model. Under no other model can we use knowledge about our world to discuss other realities. It also helps us to dismiss illogical ideas even when it comes to religion. Even as a Christian one must have good nerves to believe that free will is a magical concept after reading this, but unlike other theories this model does not by default exclude ideas like God, morality, the multiverse, as long as they can be explained logically.




    Final words:
    I have a rational faith that only logic and truth exist, based on arguments presented in this opening statement.
    I do not claim that my model represents actual truth, rather it helps us to understand reality from a new perspective.


  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    Why logic must exist
    1. A logical argument against logic is contradictory
    True.

    1. An illogical argument against logic would be subjective
    This is not necessarily the case.

    1. This is a forum, logic must be present
    Neither is this.

    It is undeniable that logic exists: humans have invented it. But it is not clear that logic must exist and your faux-syllogism here does not demonstrate its necessity.

    Logic: A function which uses known information to create new information
    Strictly speaking logic isn't a function since a single logical argument can prove many things (functions are one-to-one or many-to-one, but never one-to-many or many-to-many). Logic rather is a process or a ruleset that does, yes, extrapolate to find new truths.

    1. Nothing can exist that can not be described by specific truth-claims
    2. No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements
    3. Conclusion: Nothing can exist that cannot be described using truth and logic
    Godel has already put this to bed almost a century ago. Any sufficiently advanced logical system is either inconsistent with itself or incomplete. Since the general preference is for consistency (avoidance of contradictions) we therefore must forgo completeness: there are truths that cannot be proven via a logical system.

  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    I agree that it is a Faith of mine that logic must exist.

    I see why you disagree with my claim that anything logical must exist based on the fact that humans can never create a logical system incorporating all knowledge

    However, this version of my argument is the appropriate one:

    1. Anything that exists can be described by one or more truth claims

    2. Any process in existence is a logical one

    3. Anything that is untrue or illogical cannot exist

    No illogical process has ever been recorded or proven, and claiming that illogical processes exist outside of our universe is like claiming "A wizard did it"

    By logical, I mean that a cause A has a clear and only effect B so that the effect is completely dependant on the cause. A non-logical cause and effect process can not exist as the definition of non-logic would be that an effect B happen independently of a cause A


    I will use God as an example as except for randomness, only supernatural beings are claimed to operate independently of logic:

    For example, if one believes that God is spirit and thus does not abide by the laws of logic, then one must ask themselves this question: how does God make decisions then, randomly? And by the way, randomness is a product of logical systems. You can literally get random numbers by calculating irrational decimals, or by rolling dice. Math is a logical process because the output is 100% dependant on the input. Maybe a spirit makes choices using free will then? Free will is an emergent feature of our brain, which operates by the totally logical laws of physics. Thus even God must follow the laws of logic.

    Now one could claim that this "spirit" does not operate under the law of logic, that it is simply a law God created for our universe. Now, this is theoretically possible, but then again how could we then understand him, be made in his image or even describe him. The only viable idea here is to think that both God and humans have a spirit, but that would be, like I said, to claim that "a wizard did it". One could not claim that a process such as randomness or free will, that have been proven to be an emergent feature of logical physical laws, could exist independent of logic outside our universe. Claiming that true randomness or true free will exists outside our universe independent on logic, would be like claiming that "a wizard did it" when the questions of randomness or free will emerge inside our universe. Ultimately one cannot claim that free will and randomness exist inside and outside our universe with different properties. The only reasonable conclusion would be that either does randomness, logic and free will exist only inside our universe, or accept that it must be based on logic also outside our universe. In other words, God, if he has free will, must be an emergent feature of logical processes. The same thing goes for randomness, it cannot exist based on logic in our universe but independent of logic outside our universe.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,340
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @Benjamin
    If the claim "truth does not exist" is correct, it is a truth that exists
    The substance of which is tautological, not ontological. The truth is an abstract informed by subjective experience.

    Thus "Truth does not exist" contradicts its own statement
    Not necessarily; it depends on the context on which the term "exist" is being applied.

    If the statement "I exist" is objectively a truth I could not claim that
    Objectivity is irrational. "I exist" is the basis of subjective experience.

    A logical argument against logic is contradictory
    Yes.

    An illogical argument against logic would be subjective
    No. First, all arguments are logical. The only matter is whether the argument is sound or unsound, or consistent or inconsistent.

    This is a forum, logic must be present
    No.

    2. No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements

    This one is interesting. I first want to explain what that statement means. Logic takes at least two truths/bits/numbers and "creates" a new truth/bit/number. The nature of logic is that it is 100% reliable and predictable. So far, science has proven that anything we thought of as "not logical", are just emerging features of logical systems. Randomness is just a product of complex physical laws that are nearly impossible to predict. Some mathematical functions and irrational numbers are used in order to "calculate" randomness inside our computers. We also know that chemistry is purely logical, there is no randomness or free will involved. Our brains, however, have properties of both randomness and free will, emerging features of a super complex chemical system. True randomness has never been confirmed, neither has true free will as a spirit or supernatural soul. One could believe in illogical decision-making systems like these as part of one's own faith. 

    Let me use God as an example, defined by having the ultimate free will.
    How does God make decisions, logically, random or using free will? Someone has yet to explain what free will is, if not for emerging features of randomness emerging from logic. God would be the ultimate reality, and must thus be made of ultimate truths. As shown above, only logic can satisfactory explain how truths create other truths.
    This is circular reasoning. You haven't substantiated this premise. The only evidence or proof of this premise is the premise itself.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    Obviously, I failed to prove that logic and truth exist, I admit that it is blind faith.

    No. First, all arguments are logical.
    Thank you, that was the kind of evidence I needed. Since no arguments can be illogical, we need to assume logic exists in order to use debate and use arguments.


    My point was that logic is the only reliable way to explain reality as illogical processes lack any consistent nature, as by definition logic is the law that any effect must have a cause. Any illogical concept would thus exist independently of causes.

    Let us assume that reality is illogical in nature. Since no law insist that an effect must have a cause, we have no reason not to believe anything would happen anywhere constantly, as every possible effect would happen even without the logical cause present. The reason there are no flying pink elephants in our world is that the laws of logic are in place, would you reject this statement? Now, if we imagine God or any other ultimate reality as being illogical, we have no reason to believe that God would not be a pink flying elephant. Thus, as a result, we would necessarily have to make the conclusion that God, if he exists, is logical in nature, the same rule would apply to any other reality. Now one could argue that an illogical reality exists but does not create or affect our reality, well that would be possible if "a wizard did it".

    I do not claim that free will or randomness do not exist, I claim that they are logical in nature, and could be divided into smaller logical processes.




  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 8,050
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Benjamin
    You are expressing a very scholastic type position.

    It was said by drafterman..

    Since the general preference is for consistency (avoidance of contradictions) we therefore must forgo completeness: there are truths that cannot be proven via a logical system.

    An over reliance on reason(and romanticism as well) is what lead the west astray from orthodoxy. The natural consequence of this deifying of reason is that eventually philosophy abandoned Christianity, and ultimately God, who is The Ultimate Reality.

    Nihilism, that is, the denial of absolute truth is the consequence of deifying reason.

    The Ultimate Reality is not arrived at as a logical conclusion. Rather, its existence is a revelation, an apocalypse. Logic itself should not be elevated above God, or even made equal with God.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    No, I believe that logic is not a rule God must follow, rather it is a part of his nature. 

    Both logic and revelation point towards God. 

    The problem that I see is that your view makes wrong conclusions.

    I believe humans are made of atoms. Would you call that "elevating atoms" until they are equal to or even above humans. No of course not. Since God is the ultimate reality and is logical in nature, that means that logic is a part of his nature, not that logic is above him. The reason I divide God into logic is that we can talk about other world views in the same category. Because if any view of the ultimate reality cannot be described by logic we can easily reject it. 

    Since the general preference is for consistency (avoidance of contradictions) we therefore must forgo completeness: there are truths that cannot be proven via a logical system.
    Yes, I agree, but I disagree with the assumptions. I believe that no truth is logical in nature, they are "true" in nature. But logic is the only way in which a cause can "cause" an effect. Some truths we just assume are true, like consciousness. Just because we cannot logically prove a fact does not mean it is not a fact, it just means that the explanation we cannot find still needs to be logical. We do not know what consciousness works, but it would be far fetched to believe that it, contrary to anything we can explain, is illogical in nature.

    You think my reasoning goes like this
    1. Everything is logical
    2. Some things, like morality, have no logical explanation
    3. Some truths are subjective

    My actual reasoning goes like this
    1. Everything is logical
    2. Some things, like consciousness, have no logical explanation
    3. Some truths, like consciousness, are based on the knowledge we humans do not possess, but still must be a logical explanation

    Consciousness exists even if we humans cannot understand him.

    An over reliance on reason
    What I mean by "Logic" is not human reasoning, but rather a cause and effect relationship between to truths. 
    I do not claim only things we can understand exist, but that anything possible could be understood by an outside observer, God for instance.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,163
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Benjamin
    Logic and Truth exist within a specific place.....Whether they exist outside of that place, or in fact have any external relevance, is the ongoing contention.

    I don't think that you've hit any nails on their heads here.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 563
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @Benjamin

    My actual reasoning goes like this
    1. Everything is logical
    2. Some things, like consciousness, have no logical explanation
    3. Some truths, like consciousness, are based on the knowledge we humans do not possess, but still must be a logical explanation

    Consciousness exists even if we humans cannot understand him. 
     
    Some people are able to draw a line between what conscious is and is not. My position is there is no fundamental line to draw (apart from medical practicalities). I view consciousness as something that reacts to stimuli.

    But I wonder, what are your thoughts?

  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    A logic event or result has a cause

    An illogical event would have no cause

    So unless we want to think that outside our universe basically everything possible happens at the same time even without a cause, we must think that cause and effect exist outside our universe.

    Consciousness is was distinguishes us, humans, or God, from a computer. In that every decision we make change our internal status as well as the outside world.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @Benjamin
    I agree that it is a Faith of mine that logic must exist.

    I see why you disagree with my claim that anything logical must exist based on the fact that humans can never create a logical system incorporating all knowledge
    It isn't just that humans can never create such a logical system, but rather such a logical system can't ever exist.


    However, this version of my argument is the appropriate one:

    1. Anything that exists can be described by one or more truth claims
    Ok.

    2. Any process in existence is a logical one
    This is not evident.

    3. Anything that is untrue or illogical cannot exist
    Illogical things exist. Humans are illogical. Humans exist.

    No illogical process has ever been recorded or proven, and claiming that illogical processes exist outside of our universe is like claiming "A wizard did it"

    By logical, I mean that a cause A has a clear and only effect B so that the effect is completely dependant on the cause. A non-logical cause and effect process can not exist as the definition of non-logic would be that an effect B happen independently of a cause A
    First, this is a non-standard definition of "logical". If you are going to use non-standard definitions, it would be more appropriate to present those at the beginning of the discussion. As it is, it is not a settled matter, philosophically, that causality exists or is required by logic and certain things appear to be acausal (e.g. radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, virtual particle pair creation/annihilation, etc.)
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 563
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @Benjamin
    Consciousness is was distinguishes us, humans, or God, from a computer. In that every decision we make change our internal status as well as the outside world.
    I assume free will is required for how you define consciousness. What about when it comes to life. Where do you draw that line? 

    By the way Benjamin, can you please reply to us by clicking that arrow at the bottom of our comments or typing in our name where it says receivers. Thanks you.


  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @drafterman
    Illogical things exist. Humans are illogical. Humans exist.
    What do you mean, do you reject the scientific fields of chemistry, biology and psychology. Humans literally exist dependant on the purely logical laws of physics. A computer operates under the exact same laws of physics, and it is purely logical. Are you claiming as a fact that an illogical soul exists that actually moves atoms around in our head in order to make our actions illogical? Such a thing could only exist in a religious doctrine, as science could never prove such a thing.

    This is not evident.
    Can you please defend this view, that we cannot be certain that processes are logical? Has gravity ever been negative? Has quantum mechanics ever created a flying purple elephant? Science is built upon this thing you call "not evident": Any process in existence is a logical one. Theism does not claim illogicallity exist, neither does atheism.

    As I stated above, without causality everything would exist at the same time, everywhere. There would be no rule of logic that made sure explosions did not happen inside our heads. Do you talk about the ultimate reality, explain how God or the alternative could be non-casual.

    Thank you for pointing out the part about definitions, though.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Reece101
    Scientifically, there is no major difference between a couple of atoms and a fully functional human when it comes to the fact that it must follow all the laws of physics.
    Free will could be described as being the result of highly complex chemistry in our brains. Consciousness is a little bit different. If an atom cannot have consciousness why can humans have? I mean, imagine a human without consciousness, we would not know the difference since it would act the same way, as free will can be a result of complexity. Consciousness is not scientific, but metaphysical. I cannot even understand why it exists.

    Let us make a thought experiment, imagine that we are able to simulate free will and a human body in a computer. Consciousness could not be detected, since a human with and without consciousness would react in the same way to our communication. I think that such a computer-simulated-human would simply not "feel" existence, rather it would just calculate its own feelings and show them to us. 

    The existence of consciousness is one of the reasons I am a Christian, it proves to me that a soul exists. To me, it does not matter if this metaphysical consciousness can affect my brain physically, as long as it makes me more than a complex structure of atoms.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Reece101
    Some people are able to draw a line between what conscious is and is not. My position is there is no fundamental line to draw (apart from medical practicalities). I view consciousness as something that reacts to stimuli.
    I agree with that definition to some extent. 
    But the problem for me is that our brains should react to stimuli without feeling "existence". A computer as complex as our brain would not necessarily perceive the world, rather it would just react to it. If consciousness is purely a product of atoms then how come our brains react to stimuli while another consciousness, named the soul, perceives our world just spectating it through our bodies. Consciousness as a product of atoms would not need to "see" our world, as the information needed could be processed directly by our brains.

    If somebody made an exact clone of me, and we killed me, would that still have my consciousness? 
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Benjamin
    Other than some small questions I have, I think you have been logical and have made a convincing logical case.

    Here is a question. Do you think logic is divine?
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 5,659
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    --> @Benjamin
    Illogical things exist. Humans are illogical. Humans exist.
    What do you mean, do you reject the scientific fields of chemistry, biology and psychology. Humans literally exist dependant on the purely logical laws of physics. A computer operates under the exact same laws of physics, and it is purely logical. Are you claiming as a fact that an illogical soul exists that actually moves atoms around in our head in order to make our actions illogical? Such a thing could only exist in a religious doctrine, as science could never prove such a thing.
    I am claiming that humans are illogical. Our behavior doesn't follow a set of logic.


    This is not evident.
    Can you please defend this view, that we cannot be certain that processes are logical?
    Being certain isn't the question. Certain is just an emotional state. We're talking about true and your statement is not evident.

    Has gravity ever been negative? Has quantum mechanics ever created a flying purple elephant? Science is built upon this thing you call "not evident": Any process in existence is a logical one. Theism does not claim illogicallity exist, neither does atheism.
    Science is built upon what is evident.

    As I stated above, without causality everything would exist at the same time, everywhere.
    Only if you assume causality is necessary. Your argument is circular.

    There would be no rule of logic that made sure explosions did not happen inside our heads. Do you talk about the ultimate reality, explain how God or the alternative could be non-casual.
    I presented alternatives. Radioactivity and quantum fluctuations don't appear to have a cause.
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,107
    3
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    But.
    But.

    There is like a dozen God's. 

    So To clarify. 
    When you lot say "God" 
    Are you meaning like the Christian one ? 

    It's almost like Ya don't need logic to know which one of the dozen gods is the ummmm , real god. 

    Very well played. 
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @drafterman
    My point is, everything we know abides by the rules of logic.

    Humans do not follow a set of logical rules, we follow the laws of physics, which are a set of logical rules. Your viewpoint is based on the idea that we must be described from the perspective of another human. When God looks at humans he would know everything going on inside our brain, and to him, our actions would seem as logical effects of the laws of physics.

    As with quantum mechanics and radiation, it is no real argument. Quantum mechanics clearly show us that a cause (like "observing" a particle) actually has a logical effect (collapsing the wave function). The wave function is just a piece of probability that fits the pattern with which particles move. There is no reason to believe that a seemingly random process that only outputs a single number (position) and also fits inside a probabilistic model, would not be logical in nature. Again we might never understand the randomness in quantum mechanics because the process is to small to detect and understand. But assuming that we are looking at actual, non-casual randomness would be totally blind faith. Evolution, rolling dice, the decimals of pie, humans and even cars act randomly, because of logical reasons, namely the laws of physics.

    The point to take away is that everything is logical, except fantasies we could make up and hope are true.
  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    It doesn't matter.

    God means in this case:

    1. The cause of the universe

    2. The one with perfect knowledge of the universe

    3. The one with perfect reasoning abilities
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 563
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @Benjamin
    Scientifically, there is no major difference between a couple of atoms and a fully functional human when it comes to the fact that it must follow all the laws of physics. 
    Free will could be described as being the result of highly complex chemistry in our brains. Consciousness is a little bit different. If an atom cannot have consciousness why can humans have? I mean, imagine a human without consciousness, we would not know the difference since it would act the same way, as free will can be a result of complexity. Consciousness is not scientific, but metaphysical. I cannot even understand why it exists. 
    I consider everything conscious to the degree it reacts to stimuli. That includes atoms. 

    Let us make a thought experiment, imagine that we are able to simulate free will and a human body in a computer. Consciousness could not be detected, since a human with and without consciousness would react in the same way to our communication. I think that such a computer-simulated-human would simply not "feel" existence, rather it would just calculate its own feelings and show them to us. 
    Our subconscious parts of the brain do the same though, which we have no direct control over.
    There have been many studies that have shown the subconscious makes decisions before we’re consciously aware.

    The existence of consciousness is one of the reasons I am a Christian, it proves to me that a soul exists. To me, it does not matter if this metaphysical consciousness can affect my brain physically, as long as it makes me more than a complex structure of atoms.
    It’s healthy to test your beliefs.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 563
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @Benjamin
    I agree with that definition to some extent. 
    But the problem for me is that our brains should react to stimuli without feeling "existence". A computer as complex as our brain would not necessarily perceive the world, rather it would just react to it. If consciousness is purely a product of atoms then how come our brains react to stimuli while another consciousness, named the soul, perceives our world just spectating it through our bodies. Consciousness as a product of atoms would not need to "see" our world, as the information needed could be processed directly by our brains.

    A computer as complex as our brain would not necessarily perceive the world, rather it would just react to it.
    Like I said in my last post that’s pretty much what our subconscious does before we’re consciously aware.

    If consciousness is purely a product of atoms then how come our brains react to stimuli while another consciousness, named the soul, perceives our world just spectating it through our bodies
    That would be our subconscious brain.

    If somebody made an exact clone of me, and we killed me, would that still have my consciousness? 
    Both you and the clone wouldn’t have the same consciousness to begin with. Both of you would experience the world differently.


  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Reece101

    Both you and the clone wouldn’t have the same consciousness to begin with. Both of you would experience the world differently.
    Why? You have exactly the same brain, with the same quantum states.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 563
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @Benjamin
    Why? You have exactly the same brain, with the same quantum states.
    With different perceptions comes different brain chemistry. Well I guess it depends if both you and the clone didn’t know who was the original.
    And if you guys mirrored each other exactly in terms of thought, etc. There would have to be a lot of conditions set for there to be an exact same consciousness. For a short while at least 

    A similar thought experiment is to ask yourself “Am I the same person I was 5 minutes ago?”




  • Benjamin
    Benjamin avatar
    Debates: 19
    Forum posts: 447
    2
    3
    9
    Benjamin avatar
    Benjamin
    --> @Reece101
    The question really is not how our brains make decisions, but what metaphysical thing makes us "feel" alive, even if a computer could simulate a brain, I doubt that consciousness would feel "alive"