• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Subjective Idealism compatible with Evolution?

Interesting Ian said:
What problem do I have? Remember it isn't simply just the soul which determines ones degree of awareness, but ones state of brain as well. The soul operates and gets "filtered" through the brain remember. Also all souls certainly need not be on a equal level.
Click to expand...
Earlier you said that a soul either attaches or does not. And previously you have always argued against a sliding scale of consciousness, or sentience. You always argued that an animal either has consciousness, or doesn't.

Which of these do you prefer? If you don't like any of them, please explain your alternative:

1. Souls attached even to ancient bacteria, but perhaps didn't do anything very much.
2. At some stage of evolution a soul attached to a creature for the very first time. Prior to that, no creature had a soul.
3. There is some kind of universal soul that attaches to different creatures in varying amounts. Such a soul could also attach to rocks and so on, if and when necessary.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Ian said:
I mean you can't describe something as being physical which is unobservable in principle apart from one person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ah, now it has to be observable by two or more people. That means that everything that happens to you, without other witnesses, isn't real.

~~ Paul [/B]
Click to expand...

You see this is the problem. Mercutio has introduced this word "observe" when he actually means experience. And now the new definition of "observe" is being confused with the old one! :rolleyes:

And also I said unobservable in principle. So something is physical even though it exists beyond the cosmic horizon!
 
ceptimus said:
There is some kind of universal soul that attaches to different creatures in varying amounts. Such a soul could also attach to rocks and so on, if and when necessary.
Click to expand...

Or worded slightly differently, "soul" is a word some use to describe the monism I'll call "what-is". :)
 
And others call that monism "material stuff."

How about if we all agree to call it "glorp" for the remainder of this thread and then see if we can make a distinction between different types of glorp.

~~ Paul
 
And I reply that an individual's choice of mind or body as the selected monism will be justified by logic, examining each choice in regards to specific question areas -- you know, like the non-life/life question, or the HPC question.

Science can neither prove nor disprove either selection.
 
And I further reply that if you force both glorp models to accurately describe the world we know, they will be equivalent.

There is only one glorp.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
And I further reply that if you force both glorp models to accurately describe the world we know, they will be equivalent.

There is only one glorp.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
You both sound like good pragmatists now!
 
I agree with Paul. There are often many different routes to the top of the same mountain.

I wonder if Paul has considered the possibility (danger?) of a 'Church of Glorp' starting up?

All hail Mighty Glorp!
 
I don't know if ya'all are being facetious, or if you don't agree that "glorp" will, by logic, in the end be either non-life=body or life=mind. :(

If I've understood correctly, "glorp" has already been the (non)choice that one JREFer has stated is his; that is 'no ontological commitment will be declared publicly'.
 
ceptimus said:
I agree with Paul. There are often many different routes to the top of the same mountain.

I wonder if Paul has considered the possibility (danger?) of a 'Church of Glorp' starting up?

All hail Mighty Glorp!
Click to expand...

But it's hard to be dogmatic with the credo of Glorp...


Two Newcomers approach the COG High Priestess,

Newcomer1: I think everything is made of material Glorp!
COG High Priestess: Great so do we.

Newcomer2: Well I think everything is made of an immaterial Glorp!
COG High Priestess: Fantastic, so do we you'll fit in fine here.

Newcomer1 &2 together?: WHAT!!?? You can't have that! It's got to be one or the other! What does the Church Of Glorp believe in?

COG High Priestess: Well we pretty much realised we can't ever know, so it's whatever takes your fancy or what seems to do the job. Now please join me in our prayer

"O great whatever
Any chance of an answer?
Ah never mind doesn’t matter,
Who wants a beer?"
 
Darat said:

COG High Priestess: Well we pretty much realised we can't ever know, so it's whatever takes your fancy or what seems to do the job. Now please join me in our prayer

"O great whatever
Any chance of an answer?
Ah never mind doesn’t matter,
Who wants a beer?"
Click to expand...
Well said!

I can almost see the advertisements for Glorp (brand) Beer!
 
Hammegk said:
I don't know if ya'all are being facetious, or if you don't agree that "glorp" will, by logic, in the end be either non-life=body or life=mind.
Click to expand...
There is no bit of logic that can make that decision. If you present a valid one, I will declare you King of the Kingdom of Glorp. You will be the Great Hamme-Glorp.

Really, if there is logic to distinguish one monistic existent from another, I'm excited to hear it.

~~ Paul
 
Nope, nothing distinguishes one monad from the other except the logic you apply in *choosing* one and looking at the consequences of that choice as it fits your worldview.

My point is if glorp effects or affects "mind" it IS mind; if it effects or affects "matter" it IS matter.

If you are dualist of any stripe, glorp has no meaning that I see.
 
Hammegk said:
Nope, nothing distinguishes one monad from the other except the logic you apply in *choosing* one and looking at the consequences of that choice as it fits your worldview.
Click to expand...
And I'm saying that if you're honest about the way the world is, the choice will come down to nothing other than personal preference.

My point is if glorp effects or affects "mind" it IS mind; if it effects or affects "matter" it IS matter.

If you are dualist of any stripe, glorp has no meaning that I see.
Click to expand...
Well, you got me here. Your first sentence sounds entirely dualistic, but then you say this has no meaning for dualists. Glorp doesn't affect things, it is things. It is the single fundamental existent.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
It is the single fundamental existent.
Click to expand...
Er, yes that's what I said; and the fact that you are unwilling to make what must be a binary decision says something about you but zilch about the "nature of reality".
 
Hammegk said:
Er, yes that's what I said; and the fact that you are unwilling to make what must be a binary decision says something about you but zilch about the "nature of reality".
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting I have anything with which to make this decision, other than arbitrary personal preference? Apparently you are, because you say it has something to do with the "nature of reality."

A binary decision, you think? Surely you have enough imagination to come up with a third fundamental existent.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:

A binary decision, you think?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do.


Surely you have enough imagination to come up with a third fundamental existent.
Click to expand...
Not in any way that survives the slightest brush with logic. Mind & Body are the terms commonly used for the two, possible, existents.



Or did you have an invisible smilie there somewhere?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom