Total posts: 3,052
Posted in:
What really happened cannot be known or ascertained, but it is clear that the gospel writers wanted put across that the Romans were reluctant to condemn Jesus and the blame for His death lies squarely with the Jews, especially with the Jewish priesthood.
It was a switcheroo that transformed Christianity from a Jewish cult into a gentile anti-Jewish movement, a shift from a Christanity based on Jesus' ethics to a Cristianity based on Pauline theology.
Created:
Posted in:
I suggest that dreams are the result of brains operating 'as usual' but without sense data to correct the model of reality they construct.
That is to sahat we are conscious/aware of is always largely constructed by the brain; sense data gets used to keep that constructon 'on track'. It is not quite right to say that sense-data drives what we are aware of - I think the brain it corrects a prediction made by the brain.
There are a few good reason to think that. One obvious one is that we can be surprised! In my view surprise occurs when sense-data is very different what we predicted it should be. It is not easy to expain how we can be surprised unles there is a prior expectation.
'Typo blindness' occurs because when we read our brains construct meaning from indirect clues such as a grammar and logic - the visual data of inkstains on a page 'guide' the meaning our brains construct so as long as the data is close to what we expect a typo is not noticed.
When we dream our brains are doing what they always do - construct a model of the world. But there is no sense data to keep it real, so that moel evolves in sometimes bizarre ways.
In summary, I don;t see dreaming as a 'special mode' of mental function - it is usualy brain operation minus the corrective action of sense data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What you (might) mean is 'if someone has an experience that they believe involves gnomes, would that be evidence of gnomes?'
I'd say it was. Consider an explorer who comes back from Africa and says he discovered a new species of elephant; ie he 'had en experience of a new species of elephant'.
That is evidence a previously unknown species of elephant exists... but it's not proof of it. The question aways has to be whether the person is interpreting their experience correctly.
As there are no such things as gods (probably!) it is safe to assume that anyone who interprets an experience as involving a deity is mistaken.
At least that is what I do!
Created:
Posted in:
I'm fairly sure that mammals have consciousness, and probably most vertebrates. I am less sure about,say, insects!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Brutal wrote:
"The fact that most (but not all) living things wish to survive as long as possible is merely a subjective value judgement and as such, pure qualia."
You seem very ill-disposed towards the subjective and qualia! If the universe was devoid of consciousness, there would be no subjectivity or qualia, but there is consciousness so there is subjectivity and qualia.
As I see it, if the universe was devoid of matter it would be free of 'quanta', but it isn't free of matter so there are 'quanta' - and that argument applies to consciousness and qualia equally well.
I view things in terms of 'two big bangs'. The first Big Bang is the regular one - the emergence of the physical universe (U1) of matter and energy. The second big bang occurred when consciousness arose. When consciousness arose many things came into being that had not existed before - awareness, subjectivity, and later such things as love, hope and duty. Such things constitute U2.
As humans - conscious entities - we are inhabitants of both u1 and u2. Neither is 'more important' nor 'less important' in a context-free setting. To understand our existence it is good to keep in mind our 'dual citizenship'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'd say 'value' was not 'well defined'. Another related term used in economics is 'utility', which is meant to refer to the sllightly more objectve qualiy of 'usefulness' or what it can be used for. That is to say we may not agree on the value of a thousand dollars, but we can/could buy exactly the same thousand dollar holiday with it so we necessarily agree on the 'utility' of a grand if not its 'value' - at least that is the theory.
IANAE.
Economics probably doesn't qualify as 'hard science' - but it's probably not as bad as sociology which is for humanities students but with graphs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Money is a measure of value but it's as if the standards commitee continually refined 'centrigrade' by saying 'today the temperature of boiling water is 120 degrees'.
How much 'value' corresponds to how many dollars or pounds is determined by a complicated process - or set of processes that (I suggest) are not understood or fully controllled by anybody.
However, I am not disputing that money has no intrinsic value - that is fairly obvious, and made even more obvious by cases of hyper-inflation. You can get a zimbabwean trillion dollar note for your collection for about a couple of US dollars.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Money is like 'Fahrenheit' or 'Centigrade' - it is tool for providing an arbitrary scale for a something. Fahrenheit and Centigrade are scales applicable to temperature - dollars and euros are applicable to 'value'.
Two objects that are 37 degrees centrigrade have the same temperature, two objects each 37 dollars have the same 'value',
Of course the same would be true if we used fahrenheit and euros as the scales.
Value is not as easy define as temperature; however one can say things have equal value if their exchange is equitable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
The problematical thing the conscious mind does is manifest subjective experience. That is what we have no idea how it comes about or how we could implement it in a machine.What does the conscious mind do?
Created:
Posted in:
Given that banned members appear with a strike-thru on their user name it's aleady public that they are banned - what is missing is any explanation of why and when.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Desire is just a state of the brain subject to physical laws. Where does "free will" come in?
Is that a fact or a (very reasonable) hypothesis? I would say it is whether desires are phyical brain states that is in question, even though it is what I prefer to believe!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece
The difference between a balloon gong from glasgow to london and a pilot flying to same route is that one ended up there and the other wanted to go there.
Created:
Posted in:
If a watch starts in glasgow airport and ends up at heathrow then the internals of the watch are irrelevant, so I am unsure that counts as a good counter-example!
But if a guided missie was to go from glasgow to london then it would indeed by a matter of its internal state.
However, I think I made a mistake say 'internal states' which implies physical location. It would have been better if I had said 'subjective states'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That is the problem! Quite clearly there is a difference between an airline pilot and a balloon - and only an aspiring philosopher would deny it. The major difference (relevant in this context) is that if we were interested in predicting where a balloon will go and where a pilot will go, for a balloon we can pretty much ignore any 'internal states' and only consider outside influences such wind direction.They're both made of matter and therefore obey the laws of physics. In what way do you think that the airline pilot can violate the laws of physics to allow for an expression of free will in a way a balloon cannot?
But in the the case of a pilot it is 'internal states' that are paramount.
Typical of such an internal states would be 'desires' - say a desire to to go Bordeaux. Which raises the question of what is a 'desire' made of. It is a desire a physical object? If so, I'd like to know how that works! but if a desire isn't a physical object, then there is no guarantee it is subject to ordinary causality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How to know if we don't know what 'a desire' is? Of course one can always assume things about desires...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
"There is a difference between the balloon and the pilot and the difference is will but having will does not necessitate freewill. The pilot could decide to fly to Bordeaux, or even into a mountain, but why would he? Be careful if there is a reason to do so then it isn't necessarily freewill it is a response to the cited reason and if there is no reason then it is a random act and a random act is not the exercise of freewill it is just rolling dice."
A pilot can decide to go Bordeaux - a balloon cannot.
If a pilot did divert to Bordeaux then presumably it would be in response to a desire to go there. Which leads to the question of what is 'a desire'?.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps its easier to tthink about 'people' rather than robots.
Imagine a 'person' who moved only when pushed. Push him and he'll keep walking in the same direction until he is pushed to go in a different direction. Clearly such a 'person' is lacking something that regular people have - i.e. 'free will'
Free will is something you, I and airline pilots have that balloons and industrial robots don't. What it is it hard to pin down, but I think that it is mistake to dismiss 'free will' as non-existent or to define it in such a way that one can ignore the philosophical issues it raises- such as if a computer/robot can be programmed to manifest free will - it is certainly manifested in human brains!
.
.
Created:
Posted in:
The same way you and I do of course.... by exercising its free will!
But if 'free will does not exist' there there would be no behavoural difference between a decision making making robot and a Browninan motion robot.
There are entities without free will - (toy balloons for example) and entities with free will (airline pilots). With that perpective free will comes out aas a complex and interesting phenomenon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Another version of the analpgy is to imagine building a robot. You have two choices - one is to allow it to move by 'browinian motion', pushed hither and thither by the wind. The other option is to give it the power to decide where to go and to do what is required to get there.
if free will does not exist there is nothing extra to code in the second version of the robot! Whatever free will is, it is certainly something!
Created:
Dating a piece writing is impossible when one doesn't have the actual document. I could write a 'prediction' of WW1 on a piece of paper today, put the date June 1910 on it in a thousand years how could any one tell if I wrote it fresh or if I'd copied a now lost document from 1910?
Unless you are prepared to accept things like magic and the supernatural, if a document mentions an event with 'uncanny' accuracy then it was written after the event, and that is all there is to it.
Of course it is impossible to prove a document isn't a genuine prophecy - but that's a given. However, we don't live in a world of magic and supernature so that is all the 'proof' against prophesy needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I don't think early memories are very reliable. I can't clearly being told about Santa (or 'Father Christmas' as he is in te UK) either way and I have no idea if I believed in Santa when I was or 2 or 4. I'm fairly sure I was never told explicitly that Santa doesn't exist, but neither do I recall when - or if - I stopped believing in him.
Created:
Posted in:
Suppose I release a toy balloon in Glagow airport and it end up at Heathrow.
Compare that to a scheduled flight between those two point.
At one level - arguably - there is no difference; both are the result of cause and effect. At least that is what I would suppose what an opponent of free to suggest.
I see the point of that 'no free will' argument, but it seems to ignore that there is a difference between a toy balloon ending up in Heathrow - prrrtty much at random - and the pilot of a plane who intendeds to go there and could - should he wish to get fired - go somewhere else of his choosing.
I'd say the 'no free will position' is the result either of over-thinking or under-thinking such differences. Airline pilots are not the same as toy balloons - I can see no reason not to say the difference is that pilots have free will and balloons don't; and that 'free will' is the difference beteen them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I think a thread that announces disciplinary actions would be useful. Make it writeable only by the admin because its for announcing bans, not debating them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Suppose I was to offer you right now 50,000 dollars for your old car. You (or most people) would take that deal because 50,000 dollars could well double or triple their wealth and they could replace the car for 5,000 dollars.
But if you already have a million dollars an extra 50,000 isn't such a big deal and not having car is a pain so you'd want a lot more than 50,000 to part with it. Hence prices will go up massively. In fact if every body has a million 'dollars' they might feel they don't want any more dollars but would prefer to barter goods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I'd consider one day suspensions for flaming (with something more severe for persistent flaming).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Could I exchange it for a set of tires, or a car, or a haircut?
If he has a million dollars in the bank, how much would a barber charge to give you a haircut, especially if he know you also have a million dollars? I don't think he'd do it for a sawbuck!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It seems to me all you are doing is calling 'that which exists' God. No one will deny that what exists exists! But why do you call it '
a god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In other words, you won't accept The Truth unless your demands for a miracle are met.Well, the only thing you will get is that message, that The Truth is God, and when you deny God, you are denying The Truth.
I do not deny that there is a reality - but why do you call reality God? Something that exists is 'reality' or 'truth', but unless it can do miracles it is not a god.
Created:
Posted in:
What are the attributes something has to have to count as 'a god'? I don't mean capital-G God, but a member of the class 'gods'.
For example, does a god have to be immortal or unkillable? Many myths invovlve entitities that have powers that fall well short of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, but still get called 'gods' or 'godesses'.
Does a god have to be conscious or sentient? Must he/she/it be able to plan ahead and delibately act to bring about their desired goal?
As an atheist, obvuously I don't believe in capital-G God, but really I don't believe there is any thing 'god-like'. Mopac says God is 'ultimate reality', I'not quite sure what the differene between 'reality' and 'ultimate reality' is, but I do belive in reality! But does an atheist have to dispbelieve in reality because Mopac calls reality a god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Don't you think things must be getting a bit desperate when you have to argue with Mopac?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, I am atheist. You fail to distinguish between a material universe and a god but I do not. The simplest way to tell the difference is whether it makes sense to pray to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There is no prospect of anything coming of Khan's approach to the UN and there is nothing new about it.
Pakistan's blasphemy laws are something Khan cannot ignore - they are an incrediably incendiary topic that has led to several high profile murders and assassinations, particularly of critics of those laws. Pakistan is religiously conservative and I don't think he would have come to power if he has explicitly repudiated the blasphemy laws. How sincere his support for them will be revealed by his actions over the next months and years.
As I said, his remarks were disappointing. But given the context of Pakistani politics perhaps they are not surprising.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The universe exists - that is to say there is matter and there is energy. There is nothing god-like anywhere in it - that is 'the truth'.
Created:
if Germany (or wherever) has a problem with rapists and knife-wielding maniacs then that needs to be dealt with. But rightist 'solutions' ignore home-grown knife-men and law-abiding immigrants and divide people along the line 'indigenous good, immigrant bad'.
The horrible side of that is that it won't matter if an immigant is good or bad - just being an immigrant is sufficient to render him liable,not only to official sanction but also (to judge from what is being written here), to mob justice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What is truth?
You are the one using the word 'truth' so glibly, Mo. Not only 'truth', but 'Truth' with a capital T!
If you don't know what 'truth' means then peraps you shouldn't use the word. If you do know, you should say what it means to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What makes something true?
Bad question because it's not about somethings - 'True' does not apply to things but to statements about (or descriptions of) things.
A statement is 'True' if it describes reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The OT isn't even interested in all people - only the Hebrews. The nt is about how to get yourself into heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Sure, its not the dripping of paint, its the intent of that dripping 🤔
The intent? To hide the fact he couldn't draw for toffee, I should think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'd say its disappointing, but a lot depends on political realities. This seems to be a reaction to a deliberately provocative stunt by Geert Wilders to organise a competition of cartoons of Mohammed.
Like US Republican politicians who can't afford to alienate the religious right, Khan may have felt he had to say something about it to avoid making enemies of religious conservatives. Nothing in Khan's history indicates that he is a fanatical Islamist,but he has to operate in an environment where islamismism is a powerful force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
We could try to settle is this is this a "painting" and if Pollock is a "painter".
"Pollock dripped black enamel paint onto the surface..."
You could be tempted to call it a 'dripping' and Pollock a "dripper".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Exactly. There is no single definition of what 'a painting' includes and excludes and it is up to dictionary writers what they put in their books. The precise wording can make all the difference for new and unusual cases that turn up, such a Jackson Pollock opus.
I'm not a Pollock fan, so while I might concede he was a 'painter' who did 'paintings' I do so begrudgingly!
Created:
Posted in:
If you look at the night sky you might see Mars as a tiny red dot. A small dot is what Earth looks like from Mars. Go further out and the sun turns into one star amongst a billion otthers in our galaxy and Earth is invisible. All that we care about - our wars and petty problems - are happening on something no more significant than the microscopic events on a single grain of sand in the Sahara.
And even our entire galaxy is only one of a billion others. Our insigificance in cosmic scales is beyond imagination. I have no illusion of God's existence, but I think it is absurdly arrogant to suppose a god would have any concern for our trivial brief existence.
Once - not long ago - we believed we were the centre of the universe, that we were the hub and focus of all there was. A god's gaze would naturally fall on us, but in the cosmos we aren't at the centre of anything - except our own self-regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
How do you cross the street?
I follow the chicken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You say that God must have all these qualities, and maybe God does. Tell me how these qualities are intrinsic to what Ultimate Reality means? Because The Ultimate Reality is God.
For clarity, what I said was
And there are things an entity must do to be 'God'. It must, for example, hear, understand and sometimes grant prayers. It must care if I am good or bad and punish and reward me appropriately.
I am not saying that The Ultimate Reality must grant prayers - I am saying granting prayers is a function of a god, as most people understand the word 'god'. It is certainly a function of the Judeao-Christian God. If 'The Ultimate Reality' can grant prayers then how is it different from God to require a new title and if it cannot grant prayers, why say it is God at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I doubt many people have looked up 'painting' in a dictionary yet we are all happy to identify certain objects as 'paintings'.
Because we have learned the meaining of 'painting' through an informal process (I can't remember learning what the term 'a painting' refered to) chances are we may slightly disagree what is and what is not a painting, especially in marginal cases.
I suspect that many people's 'informal definition' of 'a painting' implies something consciously and skillfully produced by a 'painter' or 'painters'. In that case the existence of a painting implies a painter by virtue of the implicit definition of 'painting' in use.
But someone could have the informal definition of 'a painting' as 'any arrangement of paint on a surface', in which case an accidental paint spill would count as 'a painting'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Surely a homosexual couple can perfect love through love of spouse just as much as a straight couple can. Gays may not be able to have biologica children to love, but they can adopt just as a childless straught couple can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It doesn't take a brilliant mind to know that The Truth exists.It takes a haughty mind to deny The Truth.And so the "wise" are made into fools.
You cannot be all that wise if you can't understand why your statements aren't taken seriously.
No one is going to deny the existence of reality. But I do not see what the addition of 'ultimate' makes to the word 'reality'. What is non-ultimate reality?
And there are things an entity must do to be 'God'. It must, for example, hear, understand and sometimes grant prayers. It must care if I am good or bad and punish and reward me appropriately. Is what hears prayers and punishes sin 'reality' or merely something that happens to be real (in your vision)?
Created: