View Full Version : Russell's teapot
Michael
05-13-08, 04:28 AM
In case anyone has ever wondered about Russell's teapot
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Richard Dawkins on the teapot:
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
I often think of Dawkins quote when I see little children rocking incessantly back and forth reciting versus from the Torah or Qur'an.
Zombies rocking back and forth ... they rock back and forth... day in and day out... rocking and reciting rocking and reciting....
Oh! Glory be to the Great Tea Pot. Who did take His first sip, a servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Tea fields, to the farthest Tea gardens, whose green-precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our flavorsome green tea: for He is the One Who smellith and tasteith (all things). We gave Him the Book of Chai (Perfect), and made it a Guide to the Children of Tea Leaves, (commanding): "Take not other than Me as (your) Tea Pot" O ye that are sprung from those whom We carried (in the Pot) with the Tea! Verily he was a devotee most grateful....
Zombies rocking back and forth ... they rock back and forth... day in and day out... rocking and reciting rocking and reciting....
synthesizer-patel
05-13-08, 05:02 AM
Zombies rocking back and forth ... they rock back and forth... day in and day out... rocking and reciting rocking and reciting....
Braaaaaaiiiiinsssss!
spidergoat
05-13-08, 11:12 AM
Michael, you're a dork.
http://russellsteapot.com/
Malaysian Woman Jailed for Worshipping Teapot (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/05/teapot_cult/)
More evangelical atheism? :yawn:
Michael
05-13-08, 07:37 PM
Braaaaaaiiiiinsssss!Gesundheit!
Michael, you're a dork.I try :)
A Malaysian woman has been jailed for two years for hooking up with the "teapot worshipping" Sky Kingdom cult, contrary to Sharia law which prohibits born Muslims converting to other religions.
Former teacher Kamariah Ali, 57, was cuffed in 2005 when the powers that be clamped down on the cult and demolished its two-storey sacred teapot symbolising the "purity of water" and "love pouring from heaven".
While Malaysia has constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship, apostasy is off the menu for the Muslim population. Mrs Ali previously served 20 months in 1992 for the offence, and Sharia High Court judge Mohammed Abdullah had no hesitation handing down further time.
He said he'd "considered aspects of public interest and the sentiments of Muslims in the country", and told the defendant: "The court is not convinced that the accused has repented and is willing to abandon any teachings contrary to Islam. I pray God will open the doors of your heart, Kamariah."
Ali's lawyer, Sa'adiah Din, protested to reporters: "This has to stop. They can't be sending her again and again to prison for this. She informed the court that she is not a Muslim. She doesn't come under Sharia court anymore."
Wow, they come in all flavors.
More evangelical atheism? :yawn:sleepy?
Imagine a world where thousands of children spend hour upon hour memorizing verses from the Great Tea Pot. They waste their entire youth rocking in a corner memorizing what the Great Tea Pot said - well according to It's Last Prophet - who heard the voices in His head, from an angel, while drinking tea. The Tea Verses were written onto tea napkins, scribbled onto the outside of paper sugar containers, memorized, read in the tea-leaf fortunes -gatherered hundreds of years later, by someone. Unfortunately a great number of Tea Compainions were killed in the Great Tea wars (read-tea versus green tea) and so the versus were collected by the Great Chialif into what we all know to be the only perfect book - Great Book of Chia. Amazingly it's perfect.
Anyway, I still feel sorry when I see these children wasting their youth day in and day out memorizing these Tea-Prophecies.
Michael
05-13-08, 07:41 PM
http://russellsteapot.com/images/comics/2007/Image093.jpg
Michael
05-13-08, 07:44 PM
Does everyone agree that Russel's Tea Pot is a logical fallacy? I mean, the possibility does exist that there is a celestial tea pot - right?
lightgigantic
05-13-08, 07:45 PM
More evangelical atheism? :yawn:
when it rains it pours ....
:o
when it rains it pours ....
:o
I hope you are spending your life in the pursuit of oil and natural gases rather than rocking over philosophical issues that are a waste of time. :spank:
lightgigantic
05-13-08, 07:59 PM
I hope you are spending your life in the pursuit of oil and natural gases rather than rocking over philosophical issues that are a waste of time. :spank:
until there is some atomic evidence of philosophical issues what else is a non-crackpottery super-logical guy to do?
until there is some atomic evidence of philosophical issues what else is a non-crackpottery super-logical guy to do?
Exactly.
http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/about.jpg
Michael
05-13-08, 08:28 PM
S.A.M.,
What do you think about children spending their entire lives memorizing verses from a Religious book? Be it the 'Great Book of Chai' or Torah or 'The Fundamentals of Thought' or The Qur'an or The Bible or 'John the Baptizer'?
You know, when you see the children spending their entire youth not learning math or science but memorizing verses from these books. What are your thoughts on that?
Is it really important for children to use their informative years memorizing 'Xenu's Thoughts of Volcanic A-Bombs' or the 'Scientific Miracles in the Great Book of Chai' or the 'Talking Ants in the Qur'an'?
MII
lightgigantic
05-13-08, 08:34 PM
S.A.M.,
What do you think about children spending their entire lives memorizing verses from a Religious book? Be it the 'Great Book of Chai' or Torah or 'The Fundamentals of Thought' or The Qur'an or The Bible or 'John the Baptizer'?
You know, when you see the children spending their entire youth not learning math or science but memorizing verses from these books. What are your thoughts on that?
Is it really important for children to use their informative years memorizing 'Xenu's Thoughts of Volcanic A-Bombs' or the 'Scientific Miracles in the Great Book of Chai' or the 'Talking Ants in the Qur'an'?
MII
aka - eat, survive, reproduce .... eat, survive, reproduce .... eat, survive, reproduce
:shrug:
aka - eat, survive, reproduce .... eat, survive, reproduce .... eat, survive, reproduce
:shrug:
So what else do you do ?
aka - eat, survive, reproduce .... eat, survive, reproduce .... eat, survive, reproduce
:shrug:
There's a good boy, now you're doing whats natural AND scientifically empirical. :D
Now don't you go back into delusional stuff like thinking abstract concepts that have no meaning except in your head and indoctrinating others. :bugeye:
Uh by the way, you can give me all that organic matter processed into green abstract stuff called money.
lightgigantic
05-13-08, 08:40 PM
So what else do you do ?
pursue oil and natural gas
:p
Dolphins are capable of abstract concepts..
pursue oil and natural gas
:p
Much like animals pursue resources ?
lightgigantic
05-13-08, 08:41 PM
Much like animals pursue resources ?
by golly!
I am checkmated!
My point is that people are not that different from other animals.
My point is that people are not that different from other animals.
Thats true, my cat and I share views on karma.
She always runs to the loft after breaking something.
Thats true, my cat and I share views on karma.
She always runs to the loft after breaking something.
Oh I forgot, humans have a soul and animals do not. Stupid me.
lightgigantic
05-13-08, 08:53 PM
My point is that people are not that different from other animals.
perhaps some people ...
http://www.commerce.uct.ac.za/services/php%20blog/codeunit/images/Accountants_in_Bed.gif
perhaps some people ...
http://www.commerce.uct.ac.za/services/php%20blog/codeunit/images/Accountants_in_Bed.gif
All. The only difference is a higher intelligence, and the apparent consequences of it.
LG and SAM,
do you two believe in evolution ? Do you believe the homonids have a common ancestor ?
If so, can you tell me when homonids first had a soul ?
Are you saying animals have no consciousness?
Are you saying animals have no consciousness?
No.. and I don't know where you got that from.
Now answer the questions please.
No.. and I don't know where you got that from.
Now answer the questions please.
This is where you go on ignore. :D
Stop asking silly questions.
lightgigantic
05-13-08, 09:08 PM
hint : soul = consciousness
hint : soul = consciousness
he's confusing us with western theists. :shh:
My point is that people are not that different from other animals.
Thats true, my cat and I share views on karma.
She always runs to the loft after breaking something.
perhaps some people ...
hint : soul = consciousness
If soul = consciousness, why do you say that humans are radically different from animals ?
If soul = consciousness and animals have consciousness, what is so divine about the human soul ?
I would really appreciate if you two just simply answered the questions.
Mostly because we care about such stuff, we evaluate our suffering and seek resolution for it.
We go to work , we want meaning in our existence. Its not enough merely to survive and reproduce, no matter how well we eat.
Mostly because we care about such stuff, we evaluate our suffering and seek resolution for it.
We go to work , we want meaning in our existence. Its not enough merely to survive and reproduce, no matter how well we eat.
But what causes this behavior in humans ?
Btw, I am not convinced animals don't do those things or the equivalent as well to some extent.
lightgigantic
05-13-08, 09:16 PM
If soul = consciousness, why do you say that humans are radically different from animals ?
the consciousness is not covered so much ... or to put it simply, we have the facility for philosophy/self realization/etc as opposed to issues of sleeping, eating, defending and mating 24/7
If soul = consciousness and animals have consciousness, what is so divine about the human soul ?
its more about a special facility offered by the human body
But what causes this behavior in humans ?
A greater capacity for self destruction, I think.
A greater capacity for self destruction, I think.
lol :D
Or just a higher intelligence ?
lol :D
Or just a higher intelligence ?
Sure. In either case, we murder to dissect.
And consider it justified.
the consciousness is not covered so much ... or to put it simply, we have the facility for philosophy/self realization/etc as opposed to issues of sleeping, eating, defending and mating 24/7
its more about a special facility offered by the human body
Can you point out this facility of the human body ? It seems you now claim it's corporal.
Sure. In either case, we murder to dissect.
And consider it justified.
Thank you.
Just to be clear, the difference between humans and other animals is that humans have a higher intelligence.
Agree ?
lightgigantic
05-13-08, 09:21 PM
Can you point out this facility of the human body ? It seems you now claim it's corporal.
you have reason to believe that animals exhibit, say, existential despair?
you have reason to believe that animals exhibit, say, existential despair?
No, but I do have reasons to believe that existential despair in humans finds it's origin in structures that are similar to those found in animals, only more developed.
Thank you.
Just to be clear, the difference between humans and other animals is that humans have a higher intelligence.
Agree ?
Depends on how you define higher. I don't see any dolphins forcing themselves out of bed at an early hour to meet a deadline that he has to meet so he can get paid to eat, do you?
lightgigantic
05-13-08, 11:13 PM
No, but I do have reasons to believe that existential despair in humans finds it's origin in structures that are similar to those found in animals, only more developed.
so in terms of hard nosed empiricism, not even you can point it out in the human body?
Depends on how you define higher. I don't see any dolphins forcing themselves out of bed at an early hour to meet a deadline that he has to meet so he can get paid to eat, do you?
And ? :confused:
so in terms of hard nosed empiricism, not even you can point it out in the human body?
Depends on how accurate you want my answer to be.
Do you have any reason to assume that it has its origin in something other than the brain ?
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 07:31 AM
Depends on how accurate you want my answer to be.
Do you have any reason to assume that it has its origin in something other than the brain ?
Thats not how hard nosed empiricism works
Thats not how hard nosed empiricism works
No, but did you seriously think I was a neuro-scientist or something ?
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 07:36 AM
No, but did you seriously think I was a neuro-scientist or something ?
No, but I thought you might have the empirical claims of a neuro-scientist to back up your beliefs
No, but I thought you might have the empirical claims of a neuro-scientist to back up your beliefs
I could go look for them, you on the other hand cannot.
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 07:47 AM
I could go look for them, you on the other hand cannot.
on the topic of empirical models of consciousness, at this point in time it doesn't matter who does the searching ....
on the topic of empirical models of consciousness, at this point in time it doesn't matter who does the searching ....
Consciousness ? I thought we were trying to find the origin of existential despair ?
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 08:00 AM
Consciousness ? I thought we were trying to find the origin of existential despair ?
without an empirical model of consciousness, how do you propose to locate it?
without an empirical model of consciousness, how do you propose to locate it?
Same way they located other areas in the brain, for example speech.
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 08:04 AM
Same way they located other areas in the brain, for example speech.
speech can be empirically verified .... unlike existential despair
A quick search resulted in this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060920193424.htm
speech can be empirically verified .... unlike existential despair
Existential despair is a description of a state of mind and is , therefore, potentially open to empirical verification . It is , of course, important to recognize that the mind is brain-dependent.
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 08:12 AM
A quick search resulted in this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060920193424.htm
what does that have to do with existential despair?
Existential despair has nothing to do with fear ?
It's little hard to find research that exactly matches any odd emotional state you come up with LG.
The point is that they are similar processes and that there is no reason to believe existential despair is not a mental state produced by biochemical processes in the brain, just like any other mental state.
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 08:19 AM
Existential despair has nothing to do with fear ?
It's little hard to find research that exactly matches any odd emotional state you come up with LG.
well we were talking about states distinct in humans from the onset - I mean animals also experience fear - trying to close the case by blurring the distinction between despair and existential despair doesn't help your case
well we were talking about states distinct in humans from the onset - I mean animals also experience fear - trying to close the case by blurring the distinction between despair and existential despair doesn't help your case
Why not.. maybe it has something to do with intelligence ? :rolleyes:
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 08:22 AM
Why not.. maybe it has something to do with intelligence ? :rolleyes:
what?
terming despair and existential despair as non-different?
No, one is an elaboration of the other.
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 08:32 AM
No, one is an elaboration of the other.
once again, thats not how hard nosed empiricism works
Exactly.
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8339/aboutln6.jpg
once again, thats not how hard nosed empiricism works
Well, lets have it then.. show me how it works. Prove your 'theory' the hard-nosed way.
once again, thats not how hard nosed empiricism works
Hard-nosed empiricism works by taking all the evidence into account.
Soft-nosed empiricism works by looking at some of the evidence
Non-empiricism works by manufacturing the evidence which it claims is only accessible to the priveliged few.
greenberg
05-14-08, 01:10 PM
hint : soul = consciousness
? ?
Hmm I realized you two still haven't answered these questions.
Would you, please ?
LG and SAM,
do you two believe in evolution ? Do you believe the homonids have a common ancestor ?
If so, can you tell me when homonids first had a soul ?
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 05:40 PM
Well, lets have it then.. show me how it works. Prove your 'theory' the hard-nosed way.
I am not advocating empiricism
you are
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 05:43 PM
Hmm I realized you two still haven't answered these questions.
Would you, please ?
assuming that they have consciousness, I don't see how we haven't
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 05:55 PM
? ?
consciousness, or being alive, is the symptom of the soul. It is what distinguishes a living person from a dead one
consciousness, or being alive, is the symptom of the soul. It is what distinguishes a living person from a dead one
Enough crap ! Consciousness has fuck all to do with souls, which have never been shown to exist. Consciousness is a by-product of cerebral activity. Is that so difficult to understand ? A damaged brain may lead to a state of unconsciousness, which illustrates that consciousness is brain-dependent. In plain English, consciousness has no independent existence.
Michael
05-14-08, 07:25 PM
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8339/aboutln6.jpg
Haaa!
Very nice.
lightgigantic
05-14-08, 09:17 PM
Enough crap ! Consciousness has fuck all to do with souls, which have never been shown to exist. Consciousness is a by-product of cerebral activity. Is that so difficult to understand ? A damaged brain may lead to a state of unconsciousness, which illustrates that consciousness is brain-dependent. In plain English, consciousness has no independent existence.
O...K....
:bugeye:
Michael
05-15-08, 12:20 AM
LG,
Consciousness is already ill defined, why postulate a soul? You write that consciousness is the same as being alive. But the truth is animals (including humans) can be unconscious and still be alive. You write that being alive is a symptom of the soul. Again, why postulate a soul? This is pure hyperbole, pure conjecture. There is no good evidence for a soul. You write that a soul distinguishes a living person from a dead one. But you equate consciousness with a soul. Obviously an unconscious person can be alive. And many things such as plants are not "conscious" yet they are alive. So, again, we can see that soul does nothing but muddy the waters.
Michael
lightgigantic
05-15-08, 03:16 AM
LG,
Consciousness is already ill defined, why postulate a soul? You write that consciousness is the same as being alive. But the truth is animals (including humans) can be unconscious and still be alive. You write that being alive is a symptom of the soul. Again, why postulate a soul? This is pure hyperbole, pure conjecture. There is no good evidence for a soul. You write that a soul distinguishes a living person from a dead one. But you equate consciousness with a soul. Obviously an unconscious person can be alive. And many things such as plants are not "conscious" yet they are alive. So, again, we can see that soul does nothing but muddy the waters.
Michael
by use of the word consciousness I mean "self as context" as opposed to "conceived self"
the simple fact that we make distinctions between a dead person and a person sleeping or in a coma necessitates special language
Michael
05-15-08, 03:31 AM
The ever present I, as in the I that is HERE and NOW, is a perspective but one I think that is hardwired pretty deeply into our CNS. I still do not think there is a need of a spirit when discussing consciousness. The act of "oneness" may simply be (i) redirecting blood away from an area that normally makes sense of: "This is Me, This is not Me" so that the "I, HERE NOW, that we all normally experience day to day is gone. (ii) some drugs seem to have similar effects.
As to "conceived self" yes this can change and I think it is a different think than the "self in context" (as I understand it).
I don't think a "spirit" needs to be invoked to talk about such concepts.
greenberg
05-15-08, 04:41 AM
I don't think a "spirit" needs to be invoked to talk about such concepts.
No, but to live a life, to act it is necessary to have a sense of self, and often a very abstract sense of self that seems impossible to prove with empirical methods.
For example, in order to get through the hardship of poverty or illness, one needs to disidentify with the body, disidentify with certain feelings and certain thoughts. If one would continue thinking things like "I am poor" or "I am ill" and consider them to be more than common designations and instead be metaphysical truths, then one would likely not be able to do anything about being poor or ill.
lightgigantic
05-15-08, 06:50 AM
The ever present I, as in the I that is HERE and NOW, is a perspective but one I think that is hardwired pretty deeply into our CNS. I still do not think there is a need of a spirit when discussing consciousness. The act of "oneness" may simply be (i) redirecting blood away from an area that normally makes sense of: "This is Me, This is not Me" so that the "I, HERE NOW, that we all normally experience day to day is gone. (ii) some drugs seem to have similar effects.
As to "conceived self" yes this can change and I think it is a different think than the "self in context" (as I understand it).
I don't think a "spirit" needs to be invoked to talk about such concepts.
regardless of which ever way you conceive it, the fact remains that you are an individual with a sense of "I" that is not affected by time (you weren't any less "yourself" ten years ago).
Of course you can speculate in any one of a million ways about how there is some referable aspect of our biological make up that gives this sense of I (you can find many neat ideas on the subject in science fiction).
But as far as transcendental knowledge is concerned, that referable aspect is the soul.
regardless of which ever way you conceive it, the fact remains that you are an individual with a sense of "I" that is not affected by time (you weren't any less "yourself" ten years ago).
Of course you can speculate in any one of a million ways about how there is some referable aspect of our biological make up that gives this sense of I (you can find many neat ideas on the subject in science fiction).
But as far as transcendental knowledge is concerned, that referable aspect is the soul.
Well, so much for what you call transcendental knowledge. The sense of continuity to which you refer can be perfectly explained in terms of memory and our personal history. It all happens in the brain. Brain damage and disease can lead to a loss of sense of self. So, the putative soul must also be damaged, showing that it is not necessary to invent a soul to explain anything. You are conflating it with consciousness such that it explains nothing.
lightgigantic
05-15-08, 05:36 PM
Well, so much for what you call transcendental knowledge. The sense of continuity to which you refer can be perfectly explained in terms of memory and our personal history. It all happens in the brain. Brain damage and disease can lead to a loss of sense of self. So, the putative soul must also be damaged, showing that it is not necessary to invent a soul to explain anything. You are conflating it with consciousness such that it explains nothing.
.... once again ....
I am not talking about the conceived self
I am talking about the self as context
For instance if you robbed a bank ten years ago and subsequently suffered from brain damage or a memory loss, you would still be held accountable for your crimes because the self as context (who you actually are) cannot change.
.... once again ....
I am not talking about the conceived self
I am talking about the self as context
For instance if you robbed a bank ten years ago and subsequently suffered from brain damage or a memory loss, you would still be held accountable for your crimes because the self as context (who you actually are) cannot change.
If change is not possible why bother telling others about your views. ? What is your agenda ?
Chgange is not only possible; it's inevitable. For an extreme case consider people who undergo personality changes for various reasons, a common one being that following brain trauma. Our attitudes (selves) change with th passage of time as experience will attest.
In any event, we were discussing your notion of the soul, whose existence I deny. How do you reconcile an immutable soul with a personality disorder ? I claim that invoikng a soul in the first instance explains nothing.
As for your example of the legal situation, you would be held accountable for what you were, not for who you are now. Again, an immutable self or soul, explains nothing.
Prisoners are paroled because they are considered to have changed so, whether you accept it or not, most of us accept that change can take place.
Michael
05-15-08, 07:35 PM
I agree, brain trauma can lead to very peculiar traits and these tell us something about consciousness and about what we perceive as "I".
Read up on people who have had brain corpus callosum severed. Some people are born with out a corpus callosum. Does it make sense to say a person now has two souls? No. But, it does make sense to suggest a human body with a cut brain may have two individual consciousnesses. Two "I".
Read up on people who have lost the ability to determine what is their body and what isn't their body.
Everything comes back to the brain. The "consciousness" (whatever it is) resides in the brain. The sense of "I" resides in the brain. It's all located in the brain. THAT much we do know.
Michael
lightgigantic
05-15-08, 08:08 PM
I agree, brain trauma can lead to very peculiar traits and these tell us something about consciousness and about what we perceive as "I".
Read up on people who have had brain corpus callosum severed. Some people are born with out a corpus callosum. Does it make sense to say a person now has two souls? No. But, it does make sense to suggest a human body with a cut brain may have two individual consciousnesses. Two "I".
Read up on people who have lost the ability to determine what is their body and what isn't their body.
Everything comes back to the brain. The "consciousness" (whatever it is) resides in the brain. The sense of "I" resides in the brain. It's all located in the brain. THAT much we do know.
Michael
regardless of the complex issues that can surround the conceived self, the self as context remains the same.
For instance its not as if a person who suddenly develops the absolute conviction that they are Adolph Hitler is prosecuted by a war claims tribunal
lightgigantic
05-15-08, 08:14 PM
If change is not possible why bother telling others about your views. ? What is your agenda ?
its not clear why you would expect the self as context to change - I mean its not like even two cockroaches that bump into each other in the night get confused who is who
Chgange is not only possible; it's inevitable. For an extreme case consider people who undergo personality changes for various reasons, a common one being that following brain trauma. Our attitudes (selves) change with th passage of time as experience will attest.
yes
change is an undeniable aspect of the conceived self
the self as context is something a little different
In any event, we were discussing your notion of the soul, whose existence I deny. How do you reconcile an immutable soul with a personality disorder ?
easy
by coming under the influence of a potency greater than themselves - namely illusion
I claim that invoikng a soul in the first instance explains nothing.
thats because you adopt the (empirically unfounded) theory that life arises out of material complexity
As for your example of the legal situation, you would be held accountable for what you were, not for who you are now. Again, an immutable self or soul, explains nothing.
it does however indicate that one cannot change the self as context
Prisoners are paroled because they are considered to have changed so, whether you accept it or not, most of us accept that change can take place.
Whatever changes take place, it is the offender that is held accountable for their actions, not anyone else.
The same is true of issues of reward also.
Michael
05-15-08, 10:08 PM
regardless of the complex issues that can surround the conceived self, the self as context remains the same.
For instance its not as if a person who suddenly develops the absolute conviction that they are Adolph Hitler is prosecuted by a war claims tribunalI'm not sure why you say the self-as-context remains the same. The "I" is in a constant flux because the brain is in a constant state of change.
Define "self as context"
lightgigantic
05-15-08, 11:07 PM
I'm not sure why you say the self-as-context remains the same. The "I" is in a constant flux because the brain is in a constant state of change.
Define "self as context"
the conceived self is what undergoes constant flux .... the fact that we can reflect on our different conceived selves indicates a self as context
IOW the fact that we can say "I used to like mickey mouse when I was a kid but then I grew out of it" indicates that there is something consistent that is undergoing all these changes.
If it wasn't the case, reflecting on our childhood would be just as relevant as reflecting on the childhood of the next door neighbor's kid.
Michael
05-16-08, 01:52 AM
I'll talk in the third person:
"Michael likes tomatoes, but when Michael were a child, Michael didn't think they tasted all that good"
The "Michael" is a concept used to describe the animal that grew from a child into an adult. In this sense yes there is a connection with the physical person that was and the person that is. There is no need to postulate a soul to think about this. I could say the same of my car. Let's say my car's name is Herby. "Herby was shinny and new, Herby was fast, Herby eventually got old and used up, Herby was sent to the bone yard where Herby sits to this day". See, there is both a concept of "Herby" as well as the idea that Herby is always changing.
"Michael" as a conscious entity was and is in constant flux.
There is nothing that is constant in the consciousness that is "Michael".
Just thinking about anything changes Michael's consciousness.
Again, the understanding that our brain is liquid (lipid, dissolved molecules and water) and must by its very nature be in flux means there is no real "I" as in self-as-context that is a constant. It's an illusion to think so.
Michael
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 03:01 AM
actually "michael" also hinges on conceived self issues. Self as context cannot be pinned down by issues of birth, gender etc or any other bodily designation
Once again, if you didn't have a self as context, there would be no relevance in reflecting over issues of change in your life
as for herby, the car never even had a conceived self, what to speak of a self as context.
Michael
05-16-08, 04:07 AM
Do you agree that "self as context" also changes? The Here and Now "I" is in flux?
There are two different concepts you are talking about.
(i) the past I - third person past perfect.
(ii) Here and Now "I" - first person present perfect.
Is this correct?
I still do not see a place for a soul in talking about these two concepts of "I"? It seems perfectly reasonable to discuss these topics of "I" without invoking a soul.
I am not advocating empiricism
you are
:confused: Alright.. that's it. I'm out.
Ok, I'll stay for this one.
Do you two believe in evolution ? Do you believe the hominids have a common ancestor ?
If so, can you tell me when hominids first had a soul ?
assuming that they have consciousness, I don't see how we haven't
You mean all hominids have souls ?
What about the common ancestor and the ones before that.. leading right back to the rise of life on earth.
Do bacteria have a soul ?
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 07:02 AM
Do you agree that "self as context" also changes? The Here and Now "I" is in flux?
Not sure what you mean by the "here and now"
If you mean here and now I don't like tomatoes like I used to, that is a conceived self issue.
If you mean here and now I have a sense of self that acts as a frame work for all my different expressions, that is a self as context issue
There are two different concepts you are talking about.
(i) the past I - third person past perfect.
but once again, we talk of our past as relevant to our self (as opposed to say the past of the next door neighbor).
Maybe it is helpful to consider the self as context as something like a blank canvas that we are constantly coloring and erasing images on in the way of conceived selves
(ii) Here and Now "I" - first person present perfect.
Is this correct?
I'm not sure we are on the same page completely
I still do not see a place for a soul in talking about these two concepts of "I"? It seems perfectly reasonable to discuss these topics of "I" without invoking a soul.
as soon as one can understand the importance of the self as context one can then determine the need to isolate that unchanging aspect of the self - before then, one is simply traversing the practical unlimited options of the conceived self (the moment you say "this is me" in reference to the material body or mind, you are wrong because the body/mind has shifted on to some other form/designation)
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 07:03 AM
Ok, I'll stay for this one.
You mean all hominids have souls ?
What about the common ancestor and the ones before that.. leading right back to the rise of life on earth.
Do bacteria have a soul ?
sure
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 07:10 AM
Viruses ?
sure
basically if you can indicate it in terms of being alive or dead, it has life and therefore consciousness
sure
basically if you can indicate it in terms of being alive or dead, it has life and therefore consciousness
Prions ?
Proteins ?
Methane ?
H2O ?
See what I mean ?
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 08:10 AM
Prions ?
Proteins ?
Methane ?
H2O ?
See what I mean ?
I wasn't aware that protein, methane or H2O can be observed in states of being alive or dead
I wasn't aware that protein, methane or H2O can be observed in states of being alive or dead
At which point does something become alive ?
There is already discussion about whether or not viruses can be considered life.
Prions, AKA Virons, are proteins.
I'm sure we reached an impasse..
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 08:21 AM
At which point does something become alive ?
There is already discussion about whether or not viruses can be considered life.
Prions, AKA Virons, are proteins.
I'm sure we reached an impasse..
don't they commonly use a dead virus to make a vaccine eg. hep. A?
don't they commonly use a dead virus to make a vaccine eg. hep. A?
Semantics ? They use damaged viruses.. is that better ?
The discussion isn't whether or not viruses are alive.
It's at what point matter can be called alive.
I am sure you will agree with me that it's a matter of definition..
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 08:31 AM
Semantics ? They use damaged viruses.. is that better ?
The discussion isn't whether or not viruses are alive.
It's at what point matter can be called alive.
I am sure you will agree with me that it's a matter of definition..
I guess paramedics also scrape damaged people out of car crashes too
:shrug:
I guess one way you can determine whether they are still alive is by their capacity to potentially damage themselves again in another car crash sometime in the future ....
I guess paramedics also scrape damaged people out of car crashes too
:shrug:
I guess one way you can determine whether they are still alive is by their capacity to potentially damage themselves again in another car crash sometime in the future ....
Smash up your computer. It will no longer work. Is it alive ?
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 08:41 AM
Smash up your computer. It will no longer work. Is it alive ?
it may not work, but it can easily be reconstructed so it does
take a dead person and give them life again, then we can talk business
it may not work, but it can easily be reconstructed so it does
take a dead person and give them life again, then we can talk business
So you define something as life if it, when broken, can easily be reconstructed by humans ?
Are, in that sense, proteins alive ?
it may not work, but it can easily be reconstructed so it does
take a dead person and give them life again, then we can talk businessYou want a more accurate analogy... melt your computer and the components within it - all of them.
Not just waft a flame around them - but actually melt them down - the case included - everything.
Now - reconstruct it please.
If you can - then we can talk.
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 08:53 AM
So you define something as life if it, when broken, can easily be reconstructed by humans ?
Are, in that sense, proteins alive ?
my point was the opposite
unlike material objects, life cannot be reconstructed from a dysfunctional state
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 08:56 AM
You want a more accurate analogy... melt your computer and the components within it - all of them.
Not just waft a flame around them - but actually melt them down - the case included - everything.
Now - reconstruct it please.
If you can - then we can talk.
given that the raw components for computer construction (ie metal and plastic) were extracted by various heat treating processes, I don't see what your point is
my point was the opposite
unlike material objects, life cannot be reconstructed from a dysfunctional state
Oh duh... I forgot a word.
I meant to say:
"So you define something as life if it, when broken, can not easily be reconstructed by humans ?
Are, in that sense, proteins alive ?"
given that the raw components for computer construction (ie metal and plastic) were extracted by various heat treating processes, I don't see what your point is
My point is that in the process of melting down the PC, the complex nature of the individual components become lost, and in fact some aspects will be lost permanently - thus making rebuilding the computer an impossibility. The computer will have "died".
Such with death - the complex nature of the human body breaks down to such a point that it is irrecoverable.
Thus the analogy.
So - are you saying you could rebuild the computer from the resulting lump of plastic and alloy that melting down the computer would result in, not to mention the burning of certain plastics that would irrecoverably alter their chemistry? Yes or no?
its not clear why you would expect the self as context to change - I mean its not like even two cockroaches that bump into each other in the night get confused who is who
yes
change is an undeniable aspect of the conceived self
the self as context is something a little different
easy
by coming under the influence of a potency greater than themselves - namely illusion
thats because you adopt the (empirically unfounded) theory that life arises out of material complexity
it does however indicate that one cannot change the self as context
Whatever changes take place, it is the offender that is held accountable for their actions, not anyone else.
The same is true of issues of reward also.
I don't know what the hell you are talking about but it seems like you believe we have two selves, one of which is a metaphysical construct. I believe there is only one self and that is the product of time. experience and memory.
It dies when we die because it can only be regarded as an epiphenomen of the brain.
If you have evidence for another self, please put it forward without quoting the B.G. !
regardless of the complex issues that can surround the conceived self, the self as context remains the same.
For instance its not as if a person who suddenly develops the absolute conviction that they are Adolph Hitler is prosecuted by a war claims tribunal
No. they are offered medication and some form of psychiatric intervention because it is recognized that their brain is malfunctioning.
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 05:19 PM
My point is that in the process of melting down the PC, the complex nature of the individual components become lost, and in fact some aspects will be lost permanently - thus making rebuilding the computer an impossibility. The computer will have "died".
Such with death - the complex nature of the human body breaks down to such a point that it is irrecoverable.
Thus the analogy.
So - are you saying you could rebuild the computer from the resulting lump of plastic and alloy that melting down the computer would result in, not to mention the burning of certain plastics that would irrecoverably alter their chemistry? Yes or no?
my point is that the computer never had life to begin with, since it is completely built from the ground up.
When something dies, it is irrevocable, since the nature of being alive is not a materially reducible formula
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 05:21 PM
I don't know what the hell you are talking about but it seems like you believe we have two selves, one of which is a metaphysical construct. I believe there is only one self and that is the product of time. experience and memory.
It dies when we die because it can only be regarded as an epiphenomen of the brain.
If you have evidence for another self, please put it forward without quoting the B.G. !
erm ... in that post I didn't quote the Bhagavad gita ... just to accommodate your comfort zone
:shrug:
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 05:24 PM
Oh duh... I forgot a word.
I meant to say:
"So you define something as life if it, when broken, can not easily be reconstructed by humans ?
one aspect of defining life is that upon dying, it is not within human capacity to re-establish it by material manipulation
Are, in that sense, proteins alive ?"
a dead person also has protein, so I guess not
erm ... in that post I didn't quote the Bhagavad gita ... just to accommodate your comfort zone
:shrug:
Well, that explains why you had nothing to say/
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 05:27 PM
Well, that explains why you had nothing to say/
thats ok
:rolleyes:
one aspect of defining life is that upon dying, it is not within human capacity to re-establish it by material manipulation
a dead person also has protein, so I guess not
A dead person is broken. Something has to be broken for the person to die.
Your definition was:
When broken, it can not easily be reconstructed by humans.
Try the computer analogy again, and keep in mind that there are NO spare parts.
spidergoat
05-16-08, 07:23 PM
...the nature of being alive is not a materially reducible formula
Not yet.
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 07:27 PM
A dead person is broken. Something has to be broken for the person to die.
Your definition was:
When broken, it can not easily be reconstructed by humans.
Try the computer analogy again, and keep in mind that there are NO spare parts.
thats the point - there are spare parts - and in fact the computer was clearly made from them (so it undoubtedly is a result of complexity)
you can indicate death in an organism by various factors (lack of bioelectricity in the cells, plasma deficiency, dysfunctional organ etc) but life cannot be restored or constructed from these things.
lightgigantic
05-16-08, 07:28 PM
Not yet.
hence relying on the credibility of empiricism will not help you in this regard
:wallbang:
Ok, this is going absolutely nowhere..
hence relying on the credibility of empiricism will not help you in this regard
Nor will denying it support your argument. The wise attitude is to wait and see rather than invent a convenient answer.
Science has history on its side. Religious " explanations" have proved nothing whatever to date.
lightgigantic
05-17-08, 05:35 PM
Nor will denying it support your argument. The wise attitude is to wait and see rather than invent a convenient answer.
Science has history on its side. Religious " explanations" have proved nothing whatever to date.
there is also the philosophical issue whether classical empiricism has the monopoly on knowledge ...... which of course you are reluctant like hell to discuss
:D
there is also the philosophical issue whether classical empiricism has the monopoly on knowledge ...... which of course you are reluctant like hell to discuss
:D
State the alternative ! And don't subject us to the so-called wisdom of the East !
lightgigantic
05-17-08, 05:40 PM
State the alternative ! And don't subject us to the so-called wisdom of the East !
perhaps for a start you could examine on what basis you assert that life is materially reducible ... since it is obviously not an empirical claim
perhaps for a start you could examine on what basis you assert that life is materially reducible ... since it is obviously not an empirical claim
What is your point ? You are asking a question to which you, yourself, have no meaningful answer. Why assume that science will not eventually explain it ? I'm sure as hell that nothing else will. If you believe otherwise , explain what you mean !
lightgigantic
05-17-08, 06:45 PM
What is your point ? You are asking a question to which you, yourself, have no meaningful answer. Why assume that science will not eventually explain it ?
Why assume that it will?
I'm sure as hell that nothing else will.
You surety already indicates that you have violated empirical standards
If you believe otherwise , explain what you mean !
so you agree you are talking about your beliefs of what is capable for empiricism?
Why assume that it will?
You surety already indicates that you have violated empirical standards
so you agree you are talking about your beliefs of what is capable for empiricism?
I am makinfg no assumptions other than I consider it possible that science may come up with an answer. I do not say it will do so. In other words . I am venturing an opinion based on my experience of the world.Science has provided lots of answers to problems that were once considered imponderable; religious beliefs have done nothing of the kind.
If you have an opinion in the matter. I would like to know on what it is based.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.