Regarding Franko...

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Why discuss fine details of the nature of the soul and the nature of personal reality and metaphysical mechanics with people who poo-poo all metaphysics, and do not accept the basic premise of the existence of soul/god-head at all? It's like discussing Shakespeare with a person that refuses to acknowledge the existence of the English language. The truth can be found, but you have to want to find it rather than wanting to preserve your current belief system. I'm not interested in sharing hard-earned and valuable information about the precise nature of metaphysics with people whose only agenda is to discredit the whole idea of metaphysics. I hope you can see why.

Geoff.

BTW I spend hours learning and trying to understand hard stuff like genetics, phisycs, neuroscience and so on, then I spend more time and effort trying to make some points and compose a verifiable vision of the universe (at least one that makes sense). But you can't share your "valuable information".

Point taken.

 

[Guest]

Lucifuge

So, in short, to obtain evidence of an infinite soul, you have first to believe that there is an infinite soul. Then, you have to reject any known objetive way to obtain knowledge and giving up any hope to peer review (just to be sure that we are not fooling ourselves). And all of this is TOP SECRET. Dear friend, be sure that I can see why.

I have no desire to prove this to you. It is not in my interest to attempt to prove it to you. It makes no difference to me what you choose to believe or not to believe. It is YOU who gains or loses depending on whether or not YOU decide to search for philosophical truth. Philosophy is not science.

BTW I spend hours learning and trying to understand hard stuff like genetics, phisycs, neuroscience and so on, then I spend more time and effort trying to make some points and compose a verifiable vision of the universe (at least one that makes sense). But you can't share your "valuable information".

I don't think you want it, or are ready for it. I think you have an agenda. I think you are far more interested in defending what you currently believe than actually finding out what is true. Genetics, physics and neuroscience are all very good if you want to understand half of the story. I think you already know my recommended route to the truth. Go and take an HONEST look at the mind-body problem, without a belief system to defend. Until that hurdle is crossed you will not be able to accept what I might have to say to you. Also, I am not interested in forcing you to confront the MBP. You must choose to do so. If you are happy that your current beliefs are the closest to the truth you can get then stay there.



Geoff.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The problem, dear friend, is that when I study those matters, I'm every time more sure that they take account for all the history, EVEN the mind-body problem and HPC.
BTW, knowledge is knowledge, no matter from what source you get it.
So, my agenda now is to get what is missing in my vision of the universe. My tool is the scientific method, because it gives a way to validate.

Maybe you are the one that is recurring to unnecesary entities to explain phenomena? Maybe you could get rid of preconceived notions about a trascendent reality? maybe you could someday want to now what it feels to validate you beliefs?

 

[Guest]

Luci

My tool is the scientific method, because it gives a way to validate.

Then you will learn only about science. Science is good. It tells you all about the physical world.

[rest of post deleted because I will not get involved in this sort of pointless conflict. This is supposed to be a philosophy forum - why are you trying to restrict it to science?]

 

[ShottleBop]

You are controlled by Fate my friend. You can pretend all you want, but until you have some evidence that refutes it – it is a fact. Furthermore, it is rather obvious what you have done. Your fear of Fate is sooo overwhelming that instead of concede to the obvious truth you have created an elaborate fantasy belief system whereby A-Theism can be True, and you still get magic “free will” powers, while not having to deal with the consequences of your “free willy” actions.

Why exactly should anyone be moral according to you? You have created the perfect religion for criminals, murderers, rapists, and thieves.

. . . if we are controlled by Fate, and our every action is predetermined by the IS and the TLOP, wouldn't our intrinsic nature as "good" or "evil"--and, thus, our ultimate fate--also be predetermined?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Luci



Then you will learn only about science. Science is good. It tells you all about the physical world.

[rest of post deleted because I will not get involved in this sort of pointless conflict. This is supposed to be a philosophy forum - why are you trying to restrict it to science?]

Ok then. I just would like now you to tell me what kind of answers would I expect from philosophy that are not covered by the philosophy of logical analisys.

Of course I don't want to discuss only science. If not, then I would post mostly in the science forum. I'm more interested in the cosmovision that science can give to us. Much of the questions we now answer with science were once exclusively metaphisycal field. I know you left the forum the last months so you are not aware of some threads where we were discussing the limits of science. I'm interested in closing the circle, so the most relevant questions I can ask you are:

- What are the aspects of knowledge we can't obtain using the scientific method?

- How we can evaluate the truth value of such answers?

Is that ok for you?

 

[Franko]

Shottlebop,

. . . if we are controlled by Fate, and our every action is predetermined by the IS and the TLOP, wouldn't our intrinsic nature as "good" or "evil"--and, thus, our ultimate fate--also be predetermined?

In a way yes … it would be exactly like that.

But the real question, is do you perceive that you are on a Destiny that leads you to a bright future? … or are you on a path of Destiny which ultimately leads you to a dark Fate?

 

[Guest]

Ok then. I just would like now you to tell me what kind of answers would I expect from philosophy that are not covered by the philosophy of logical analisys.

That depends how wide reaching your logic is, and how open-minded you are. It also depends whether your approach is reductionist, and attempts to analyse things by breaking them down, or whether you are willing to stand back and take a holistic view of things. You will not find a reductionist answer to questions like "How does something come from nothing?".

- What are the aspects of knowledge we can't obtain using the scientific method?

The answer to that is in Wins signature. "How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?". There is an assumption within mainstream science that many of the questions regarding consciousness have been cleared up, and all that is left is a few loose ends. There is an assumption that the realm of the physical world is vastly greater than the realm of consciousness. There are assumptions that consciousness is not of any cosmic significance and that life itself is not of any cosmic significance. To a certain extent these assumptions are born out of the conditions that science came into being during i.e. it has a historical conflict with Christianity. The same can be said of the issues regarding randomness and directionality in evolution. It is my position that in many of these fields of knowledge a science-only viewpoint will only ever provide half of the picture, just as a science-retarded viewpoint will only ever provide half the picture. Any philosophy worthy of the name should aim to resolve these differences and provide a synthesis of the different views.

- How we can evaluate the truth value of such answers?

That is an extremely simple question which has an extremely complicated answer. Believe me - I have spent a very long time examining this. Reality, as we experience it, is a first-person experience. It cannot be evaluated fully from a third-person perspective, but from a first-person perspective it cannot be verified to others. If I see aliens then I can be sure I saw aliens, even if I can't prove to you I saw aliens. Even then, I cannot be sure that anybody else will have seen the aliens - all I know is what my first-person experience was. Therefore if you want to know the kind of answers that fill in the 'other half' of this picture you have no choice but to go look for them yourself. And if you have already decided that all religion is bunk, all reports of paranormal phenomena are bunk, and that there is no way that beliefs can influence manifested reality or subjective contemplation can lead to transcendent experiences then you will never seriously investigate the religion, never accept that co-incidences might be synchronicities, never experiment with different belief systems and never experience any paranormal phenomena. I can recommend a book that might change your perspective :

"The Taboo of Subjectivity : Towards a New Science of Consciousness" :

http://www.data4all.com/list/500/512000/0195132076

Is that ok for you?

That is fine. I am a bit over-sensitive to people who infer that I do not understand science, or the importance of verifying beliefs. I did not end up being the science & skepticism moderator at the secular web by accident. I ended up being there because I was even more science-biased than you are.

 

[Franko]

Ohh my Goddess!!!

I find myself agreeing with Lucifuge Royalcola?!?! I am not sure what that means. Perhaps it is a sign that the apocalypse is less than 10 years away …

Elephant said:
I have no desire to prove this to you. It is not in my interest to attempt to prove it to you.

Translation: The Truth doesn’t really matter.

It makes no difference to me what you choose to believe or not to believe.

Well, that part I can actually agree with.

It is YOU who gains or loses depending on whether or not YOU decide to search for philosophical truth. Philosophy is not science.

Omp! There it is!

What is the difference between “Philosophy” and “Science”? It’s just lines in your mind. Any “science” that isn’t logical (comprehensible) isn’t Science – not real Science anyway. And any “philosophy” which isn’t logical (comprehensible/understandable) isn’t real Philosophy.

It’s flying an airplane into a skyscraper … for no good reason.

Clash of the A-Theist Titans …

Lucifuge Rofocale:
BTW I spend hours learning and trying to understand hard stuff like genetics, phisycs, neuroscience and so on, then I spend more time and effort trying to make some points and compose a verifiable vision of the universe (at least one that makes sense). But you can't share your "valuable information".

Elephant:
I don't think you want it, or are ready for it. I think you have an agenda. I think you are far more interested in defending what you currently believe than actually finding out what is true. Genetics, physics and neuroscience are all very good if you want to understand half of the story. [ahhh! Now I agree w/UCE!] I think you already know my recommended route to the truth. Go and take an HONEST look at the mind-body problem, without a belief system to defend. Until that hurdle is crossed you will not be able to accept what I might have to say to you. Also, I am not interested in forcing you to confront the MBP. You must choose to do so. If you are happy that your current beliefs are the closest to the truth you can get then stay there.

Okay, so Elephant if you are happy with your beliefs then stay there. Take your own advice, but if you are unwilling to logically defend what you believe; if you are unwilling or unable to explain your beliefs in a comprehensible fashion that can be understood by the people in this forum, then what is your point in being here??

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

UCE:

I have been always aware that you know science first hand, now please let me tell you that I know exactly the kind of problems HPC and the mind body problem are. And, because I'm aware that there were holes (ocassionally huge) in our comprehension of the nature of the concioussness phenomena via empirical observation and the traditional scientific method, I MAY understand where do you come from.

That depends how wide reaching your logic is, and how open-minded you are. It also depends whether your approach is reductionist, and attempts to analyse things by breaking them down, or whether you are willing to stand back and take a holistic view of things. You will not find a reductionist answer to questions like "How does something come from nothing?".

Can I assume you are talking here of more than Quantum Fluctuation?
The relevant question here is: Can you find subjetive answers to ANY question or there are some question that cannot be subjetive answered? The response to "How does something come from nothing?" can be found subjetively?

AFAICS, many of our scientific theories weren't obtained reductionistically. I'm pretty sure that General Relativity and Quantum Theory were "Eureka" experiences, holistic answers to complex problems and weren't obtained little step by little step.

BUT the verification proccess is reductionist per-se. Since you already have the holistic knowledge, a reductionist verification couldn't hurt, doesn't it?

The answer to that is in Wins signature. "How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?". There is an assumption within mainstream science that many of the questions regarding consciousness have been cleared up, and all that is left is a few loose ends. There is an assumption that the realm of the physical world is vastly greater than the realm of consciousness. There are assumptions that consciousness is not of any cosmic significance and that life itself is not of any cosmic significance. To a certain extent these assumptions are born out of the conditions that science came into being during i.e. it has a historical conflict with Christianity. The same can be said of the issues regarding randomness and directionality in evolution. It is my position that in many of these fields of knowledge a science-only viewpoint will only ever provide half of the picture, just as a science-retarded viewpoint will only ever provide half the picture. Any philosophy worthy of the name should aim to resolve these differences and provide a synthesis of the different views.

UCE, the problem with concioussness NOW is that the loose ends are fewer each month. Of course there are still loose ends, but we have some tools to explore concioussness and its relation to the material like never before (pe Trascranial Stimulation). But I get your point. You are talking about how, under those assumptions, we can't develop a complete picture of the subjetive phenomena. Am i right? Because if so, that claim is falsiable.

"The third-person requeriment of science can't account for the first-person nature of conciousness" is also a falsiable claim. Would you please provide an experiment which could convince you that this claim is false?

That is an extremely simple question which has an extremely complicated answer. Believe me - I have spent a very long time examining this. Reality, as we experience it, is a first-person experience. It cannot be evaluated fully from a third-person perspective, but from a first-person perspective it cannot be verified to others. If I see aliens then I can be sure I saw aliens, even if I can't prove to you I saw aliens. Even then, I cannot be sure that anybody else will have seen the aliens - all I know is what my first-person experience was. Therefore if you want to know the kind of answers that fill in the 'other half' of this picture you have no choice but to go look for them yourself.

We have another option: Experiment the effects of the phisycal into conciousness! It's a new way to test assumptions about conciousness that have future. You are right, at first look, subjetive phenomena can be tested by third parties. Do you think this problem is not solvable?

And if you have already decided that all religion is bunk, all reports of paranormal phenomena are bunk, and that there is no way that beliefs can influence manifested reality or subjective contemplation can lead to transcendent experiences then you will never seriously investigate the religion, never accept that co-incidences might be synchronicities, never experiment with different belief systems and never experience any paranormal phenomena.

About this you are very wrong. I don't "decide" that something is false a priori . One tests the claims. When the claims are shown false again and again then you, well, get tired. AND a testable (not subjetive) claim is that belief can influence manifested reality. THAT IS TESTABLE and I of course would change my mind if I see that.


Now your claim that I never experimented diferent belief systems and so on. That claim is false my friend.

I can recommend a book that might change your perspective :

"The Taboo of Subjectivity : Towards a New Science of Consciousness" :

http://www.data4all.com/list/500/512000/0195132076

I'll try to get it.

That is fine. I am a bit over-sensitive to people who infer that I do not understand science, or the importance of verifying beliefs. I did not end up being the science & skepticism moderator at the secular web by accident. I ended up being there because I was even more science-biased than you are.

A bit? I was scared See, I want to take just a grasp of that. What was the beggining of your conversion history?

 

[Guest]

What was the beggining of your conversion history?

Two things were extremely relevant. One was the realisation that mathematical structures self-exist without the need for a creator, and the other was about the roots of Christianity - specifically the fact that the Christian mythology was based on earlier mythologies and that the original Christian movement was actually mystical/gnostic NOT the literal version we inherited after the conference of Nicea and the incorporation of Christianity into Roman policitics.

I should also mention that you describe me as 'converted' but Frankenstein still insists I am an 'A-theist'.

 

[Guest]

The response to "How does something come from nothing?" can be found subjetively?

YES

 

[Franko]

UCE:

Two things were extremely relevant. One was the realisation that mathematical structures self-exist without the need for a creator

Wow … did this come to you as a divine revelation, or did someone just email it to you?

So you are claiming that mathematics self-exists? Numbers are around even if there is no one to perceive them? … really? How do you know this? I thought Heiny-berg said you can’t know what is happening when you aren’t looking? (or did he say that the “magic” only happens when you aren’t looking, I always get that mixed up …)

Let me ask you this mystic-boy, if no one is around to perceive Time … does Time exist?

… In what way?

 

[Guest]

Frankenstein,

So you are claiming that mathematics self-exists?

I am a mathematical Platonist, yes.

How do you know this?

The Prime numbers have to be the Prime numbers. They could not be any other Prime numbers.

I thought Heiny-berg said you can’t know what is happening when you aren’t looking?

Heisenberg was refering to the physical world.

Let me ask you this mystic-boy, if no one is around to perceive Time … does Time exist?

No, I do not think so.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Two things were extremely relevant. One was the realisation that mathematical structures self-exist without the need for a creator

Care to elaborate ? a Link would be enought.

and the other was about the roots of Christianity - specifically the fact that the Christian mythology was based on earlier mythologies and that the original Christian movement was actually mystical/gnostic NOT the literal version we inherited after the conference of Nicea and the incorporation of Christianity into Roman policitics.

It is a tautology. Christianism, being a human creation, should correlate to earlier beliefs. Anyway, how could that be reponsible of your conversion? You think that there is an ancient body of gnostic doctrine that explain the higher spheres of reality and that it is contained in the original christianism?

I should also mention that you describe me as 'converted' but Frankenstein still insists I am an 'A-theist'.

Who cares about what Frankook says

 

[Franko]

Elephant,

The Prime numbers have to be the Prime numbers. They could not be any other Prime numbers.

If there were no consciousnesses to perceive “Prime Numbers” in what way would Prime numbers exist?

Franko:
I thought Heiny-berg said you can’t know what is happening when you aren’t looking?

Elephant:
Heisenberg was refering to the physical world.

So you are actually claiming that a “non-physical” mental-world exist apart from Minds? In other words you are actually claiming that some non-physical mental sphere exist independent of consciousness?

And how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Where is your train of thought?

Franko:
Let me ask you this … if no one is around to perceive Time … does Time exist?

Elephant:
No, I do not think so.

You sure you want to stick with that answer? … cause in the past You had a difference stance.

If it helps, I agree. No Consciousness – No Time.

 

[Franko]

Luciforgery Rochellerina: (A-Theist Toady)

Who cares about what Frankook says

Your boyfriend (the [A-Theist] Fool) sure seems to get awful riled up by me. Why ... does She come home and bitch-slap you around afterwards?

 

[Guest]

Luci

Care to elaborate ? a Link would be enought.

Numbers are inevitable. The Primes cannot have been any different to what they are. They are a fixed set of fundamental relationships. The integers can be extracted by applying basic logic to the empty set. Further applications of very simple logic to the integers can provide any amount of complexity you like. None of this requires as designer because it all self-exists - it just waits to be discovered. The implications of this are massive. Last year Stephen Wolfram published a book called 'A New Kind of Science' which describes how patterns of immense complexity can emerge from cellular automata - complex enough to represent all the complexity we see in physical and biological nature. All of that is also implied to self-exists as potential and all without any need for a designer. There are only two things missing from the picture now. One, as Hawking put it, is something to breathe life into the model and make it physically existent. The other is an explanation as to how this physically existent Universe gives rise to consciousness - or what consciousness is. The rest of Reality is accounted for. But it seemed to me that something like this had to figure as part of a 'theory of everything'. It seemed to me that we hard started from nothing (literally) and got at least half way to explaining existence using only logic. At the time I was actively involved in fighting creationists, hence my involvement with the secular web. It seemed to me a rather powerful weapon in the fight against creationism to have a theory which accounted for all forms of design without a designer.

Rather later I realises that the two questions remaining could be viewed as cancelling each other out, a knot and an anti-knot on a piece of rope which could be brought together to leave a piece of string with no knots at all.

It is a tautology. Christianism, being a human creation, should correlate to earlier beliefs. Anyway, how could that be reponsible of your conversion?

You asked what the initial triggers were. There is a great deal more to it than that.

You think that there is an ancient body of gnostic doctrine that explain the higher spheres of reality and that it is contained in the original christianism?

No. It was more a realisation that Christianity as we know it today was not really what it was originally intended to be. It opened the door for me to look more deeply into the original meaning of Christian mythology and its relationship to the meanings of other religious mythologies. It was a sniff of the truths that the metaphors encode, instead of just revulsion to a long-abused metaphor by literalists and power-seekers.


Geoff.

 

[Guest]

Frank,

If there were no consciousnesses to perceive “Prime Numbers” in what way would Prime numbers exist?

In the way that they would be inevitable. The set of relationships we term Prime Numbers are eternally the same. Numbers exist regardless of time or space, and must be the way they are.

So you are actually claiming that a “non-physical” mental-world exist apart from Minds? In other words you are actually claiming that some non-physical mental sphere exist independent of consciousness?

No....

I am claiming that numbers exist independent of consciousness. Apart from that I don't really understand why you think I implied what you have written. I might be...I can't grasp exactly what you mean. How can you have a mental sphere independent of consciousness?

 

[scribble]

Numbers are inevitable. The Primes cannot have been any different to what they are. They are a fixed set of fundamental relationships. The integers can be extracted by applying basic logic to the empty set. Further applications of very simple logic to the integers can provide any amount of complexity you like. None of this requires as designer because it all self-exists - it just waits to be discovered. The implications of this are massive. Last year Stephen Wolfram published a book called 'A New Kind of Science' which describes how patterns of immense complexity can emerge from cellular automata - complex enough to represent all the complexity we see in physical and biological nature. All of that is also implied to self-exists as potential and all without any need for a designer. There are only two things missing from the picture now. One, as Hawking put it, is something to breathe life into the model and make it physically existent. The other is an explanation as to how this physically existent Universe gives rise to consciousness - or what consciousness is. The rest of Reality is accounted for. But it seemed to me that something like this had to figure as part of a 'theory of everything'. It seemed to me that we hard started from nothing (literally) and got at least half way to explaining existence using only logic. At the time I was actively involved in fighting creationists, hence my involvement with the secular web. It seemed to me a rather powerful weapon in the fight against creationism to have a theory which accounted for all forms of design without a designer.

The math doesn't matter