Is Ignorance Bliss?

[DuskO]

Ignorance is Bliss. Knowledge is Power.

Debate.

[mouschi]

I believe you just won the debate. Congrats! :thumbsup:

[Xaf]

He is good

[Galron Kincaid]

Ignorance is Bliss.


Ignorance is a bliss.... only if you know what you're ignoring.

That's kind of an intellectual black hole :scratch:

[ScytheNoire]

Ignorance is a bliss.... only if you know what you're ignoring.

That's kind of an intellectual black hole :scratch:
that goes against the statement. ignorance is bliss because you don't know what you are missing out of. that's the point of the statement.

i often wish that i was more ignorant (not rude, i can do that quite well), that way i wouldn't be so stressed out and always worrying about stuff. plus i'd probably not overthink things so much, which is another one of my many issues.

[Tso Za Naoa]

Ah humans are strange things. You see, most people would prefer to know, when they don't, and don't want to know once they have. Hey thats a catch 22 isnt it?

Even stranger, the human individual can handle the truth most of the time. Tell the group of people the truth, forget it, its all over. Better to leave the group as the dumb stupid animals they want to be. Thats kind of how governments work actually...

[Galron Kincaid]

i'd probably not overthink things so much


Thinking can never be exaggerated. :)

[Graav Wolfsong]

Ah humans are strange things. You see, most people would prefer to know, when they don't, and don't want to know once they have. Hey thats a catch 22 isnt it?

Even stranger, the human individual can handle the truth most of the time. Tell the group of people the truth, forget it, its all over. Better to leave the group as the dumb stupid animals they want to be. Thats kind of how governments work actually...

That is so ridiculously true. :lol:
A person is smart but people are a flock of hysteric sheep.

[ScytheNoire]

That is so ridiculously true. :lol:
A person is smart but people are a flock of hysteric sheep.
hence the mob mentality law, which came up on CSI Las Vegas before
when you have a large group of people, rational thought is often put aside in favour of emotional response

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Scripture says that "he who increases knowledge, increases sorrow". THis is because an increase in knowledge yields an increase in a greater scope of reality, which includes those things we don't like. Our reaction is to "make" reality into something different, by omitting or twisting those things we have trouble with. Simply not knowing, or denying these not-so-great aspects can offer a bandaid solution to a perennial problem.

[Kronious]

Ignorance is Bliss. Knowledge is Power.

Heh if its something where dealing is a Future Event (etc; when id OB going to happen) and either good or bad its still stressful either way. Not knowing or knowing when its going to happen. Knowing is better :thumbsup:

The certainty of misery is better than the misery of uncertainty---Pogo---

[Sage the Mage]

I wouldn't say a lack of ignorance leads to more stress. Too much responsibility leads to stress (being President is just a tad bit stressful).

[Eiger]

that goes against the statement. ignorance is bliss because you don't know what you are missing out of. that's the point of the statement.

i often wish that i was more ignorant (not rude, i can do that quite well), that way i wouldn't be so stressed out and always worrying about stuff. plus i'd probably not overthink things so much, which is another one of my many issues.
It's always been my theory that those who live the longest (100+) tend to have less stressful lives as well as fairly simple ones. Can't back it up, but I've always assumed that these folks aren't very politically motivated and tend to lead lives of ignorant bliss.

[Sage the Mage]

That's because politically active lives tend to get ya shot.

[Squarebob Spongepants]

Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Corruption is bad. Therefore, knowledge is evil and will lead to damnation. So to maximize your chance of getting into heaven when you die, you need a sensory deprivation tank.

_______________________________

The game is ready for lunch.

[Father Jack]

Our reaction is to "make" reality into something different, by omitting or twisting those things we have trouble with. Simply not knowing, or denying these not-so-great aspects can offer a bandaid solution to a perennial problem.

This is like the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. This is a common condition where a persons mind rebels against some new knowledge that contradicts something they believe deeply. The result is they refuse to believe this new information despite all evidence to the contrary. Since this new knowledge would be to disruptve and painful to their world view. For example the belief among some people that there is no such thing as evolution despite the fossil record.

Personally I feel Ignorance is slavery.

[Sage the Mage]

Can we call it the Powermonger Effect? :) Sorry couldn't resist.

[ScytheNoire]

Can we call it the Powermonger Effect? :) Sorry couldn't resist.

:lol: the truth hurts

[Semidi]

is this a red or blue pill question? Because I don't want to enter the matrix, I bet it's even worse than the movie.

[Father Jack]

Can we call it the Powermonger Effect? :) Sorry couldn't resist.

Actually I do think he suffers form a rather extreme case of cognitive dissonance.

[powermongor]

Actually I do think he suffers form a rather extreme case of cognitive dissonance.

While I will admit I am not the most psychologically stable person in the world atm, I do periodically challenge some of my beliefs, and the end result is that I typically find myself a stronger believer than before.

[Father Jack]

While I will admit I am not the most psychologically stable person in the world atm, I do periodically challenge some of my beliefs, and the end result is that I typically find myself a stronger believer than before.

Exactly the definitive result of Cognative Dissonance. In another post you claim that the us has found a couple of gallons of Sarin enough to kill 100,000 people you claim. This is just false (see my reply there) but you really believe this yet it has never been reported anywhere. See you cling to your belief of the discovery of WMD's even though every expert acknowledges that there were none. It is a defense mechanism because you can't face the fact that you were wrong. Because if you were wrong about that what else could you be wrong about and your whole world that you have created for yourself shatters.

[Elevander]

I wouldn't say a lack of ignorance leads to more stress. Too much responsibility leads to stress (being President is just a tad bit stressful). You should change your avatar in honor of the season.

http://www.gamingforce.com/forums/customavatars/avatar20519_8.gif

[220683]

You can't handle the truth

Human beings are abomin...I mean emotional creatures. We are fallible and unable to really judge objectively. Some things you just aren't meant to know.

[SpiritWalker]

Exactly the definitive result of Cognative Dissonance. In another post you claim that the us has found a couple of gallons of Sarin enough to kill 100,000 people you claim. This is just false (see my reply there) but you really believe this yet it has never been reported anywhere. See you cling to your belief of the discovery of WMD's even though every expert acknowledges that there were none. It is a defense mechanism because you can't face the fact that you were wrong. Because if you were wrong about that what else could you be wrong about and your whole world that you have created for yourself shatters.
Admitting your mistake and/or appologizing are often the hardest things for someone to do. It really does take a man to truely admit he was wrong and appologize.

[blindcside]

juicy steak > runny goupy stuff

[stacker55]

my grandmother is 102 as of september 13th and even though i would hate to live as long as her, she has the best life i've ever seen. she has been through her share of crap. she's outlived all of her children and siblings. her husband died before i was born. she's had breast cancer and lost her sense of taste from the radiation treatments and she's hard of hearing and blind in one eye, but apart from this her cancer is gone, she wakes up every day and cleans and cooks, watches the news and reads the bible. she has read the bible more than 4 times and used to be a teacher. her husband made her stop teaching so she would teach bible study at her church. i would not say she is ignorant but she is sure full of bliss. the only thing she worries about is if the food is good and the tv remote has bateries. if knowlege was power then she is a god. she remembers her childhood life more than 100 years ago. she remembers the names of people she doesnt even talk to, and remember who their families are. she could sit down with you and teach you, in lamens terms, the entire bible so that a teenager could understand and relate. i believe that power derives from the individual. you can use your knowlege to gain power or you can use it to remain ignorant. if you know how to find pure bliss then ignorant or not, you have more power than the person beside you.

[Lazzmodai]

I was going to go on about spiritual ignorance, but I don't think I want to.

Instead, I'll say that was an excellent post. Especially the last line. Well done, Stacker.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Especially the last line.

... which is in need of qualification. Anyone can find bliss, but that brings us back to the source of it. Thanks for your sharing though Stacker. She sounds like a wonderful person.

[SpiritWalker]

my grandmother is 102 as of september 13th and even though i would hate to live as long as her, she has the best life i've ever seen. she has been through her share of crap. she's outlived all of her children and siblings. her husband died before i was born. she's had breast cancer and lost her sense of taste from the radiation treatments and she's hard of hearing and blind in one eye, but apart from this her cancer is gone, she wakes up every day and cleans and cooks, watches the news and reads the bible. she has read the bible more than 4 times and used to be a teacher. her husband made her stop teaching so she would teach bible study at her church. i would not say she is ignorant but she is sure full of bliss. the only thing she worries about is if the food is good and the tv remote has bateries. if knowlege was power then she is a god. she remembers her childhood life more than 100 years ago. she remembers the names of people she doesnt even talk to, and remember who their families are. she could sit down with you and teach you, in lamens terms, the entire bible so that a teenager could understand and relate. i believe that power derives from the individual. you can use your knowlege to gain power or you can use it to remain ignorant. if you know how to find pure bliss then ignorant or not, you have more power than the person beside you.
Sounds like your grandma and I could get into a hell of a debate then.. too many flaws in the bible.. must resist.. :lol:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sounds like your grandma and I could get into a hell of a debate then.. too many flaws in the bible.. must resist..

You're either very brave, or very forgetful... "what flaws?"

[vid]

Oooh, bringing up religion, thats like putting a python in with your rabbits :)

Don't go there people ;)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Oooh, bringing up religion, thats like putting a python in with your rabbits :)

Don't go there people ;)

Why? Is this because you believe there is no solution, and further discussion would only elicit more needless flaming?

[Father Jack]

Why? Is this because you believe there is no solution, and further discussion would only elicit more needless flaming?

I think because religious belief is based on faith. Faith isn't something that can be tested or proved. By definition faith requires you to take certain concepts as fact without direct experience. It is also involves beliefs that are deeply held and personal, so feelings are more likely to be hurt.


One mistakes in the bible he may be refering to is where it says the sun revolves around the earth, When the earth revolves around the sun. This lead to the persicution of Galeleo Galili by the Holy Roman Church, when he discovered that the earth moves. Because it was a challenge to scripture.

If the Bible is the word of God it was still written by human beings, who God made fallable. Whatever anyone beleives, you can not deny the broad themes of wisdom in the bible are still relevent.

[Lazzmodai]

Why? Is this because you believe there is no solution, and further discussion would only elicit more needless flaming?
I think all the needless flaming has been put down in other hijacked threads already. This one could do without the holy spin on things.

[SpiritWalker]

I know I can have a healthy discussion with AoA about this, but I cannot assure the same for other posters.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I think because religious belief is based on faith. Faith isn't something that can be tested or proved. By definition faith requires you to take certain concepts as fact without direct experience. It is also involves beliefs that are deeply held and personal, so feelings are more likely to be hurt.


THis is the notion that requires qualification. To espouse any profession of faith, a viable groundwork for assent to that belief must first be established. I will argue that after subjecting content to the laws of reason, there really can only be certain options available for belief in terms of having faith. Having faith entails "faith in" an object of some sort. THere can only be one true faith, as there is only one reality. Disagree with that? I'm happy to entertain your questions.


One mistakes in the bible he may be refering to is where it says the sun revolves around the earth, When the earth revolves around the sun. This lead to the persicution of Galeleo Galili by the Holy Roman Church, when he discovered that the earth moves. Because it was a challenge to scripture.


This challenge was not presented to scripture, but to a particular literal reading thereof. Uneducated scholars have no place in brushing aside the sacred text.


If the Bible is the word of God it was still written by human beings, who God made fallable. Whatever anyone beleives, you can not deny the broad themes of wisdom in the bible are still relevent.

Fallible in what sense? To say that God cannot work his "perfect will" through "fallible" mediums, is to place a limit on God. It is also an inconsistency to label what is fallible, and what is not. This would presume an understanding of laws, and indeed, power over the concept of fallibility, which is beyond the human being's power.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I know I can have a healthy discussion with AoA about this, but I cannot assure the same for other posters.

THat's really no excuse for not discussing it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I think all the needless flaming has been put down in other hijacked threads already. This one could do without the holy spin on things.

I'm not sure what this "holy spin" is you refer to. What I do know however is that you just backed out of an important discussion we had on another thread. Why must we have these discussions? For that very reason. I see forum thugs post drivel about how they hate religion, etc, with really no rhyme or reason to it. The subject deserves better than to simply be sidelined.

[Xaf]

THis is the notion that requires qualification. To espouse any profession of faith, a viable groundwork for assent to that belief must first be established. I will argue that after subjecting content to the laws of reason, there really can only be certain options available for belief in terms of having faith. Having faith entails "faith in" an object of some sort. THere can only be one true faith, as there is only one reality. Disagree with that? I'm happy to entertain your questions.



This challenge was not presented to scripture, but to a particular literal reading thereof. Uneducated scholars have no place in brushing aside the sacred text.



Fallible in what sense? To say that God cannot work his "perfect will" through "fallible" mediums, is to place a limit on God. It is also an inconsistency to label what is fallible, and what is not. This would presume an understanding of laws, and indeed, power over the concept of fallibility, which is beyond the human being's power.

Yay this again. Ill end it now; free will doesnt work with an omnipotent being. Just doesnt work at all. So that would be a big flaw in the bible.

[Khal'jur]

Faith also commonly comes from trusting someone elses "direct experience" and really believing what they say is the truth.

Also, to me, I don't understand how anyone could say there is "one truth faith." Sure, people may think they're right and everyone else is dead wrong, but does that make them right?

I could say I believed in anything I wanted and claim it to be the truth.

And if there really is a God, how could we, as humans, bound by the rules of logic, possibly even come close to understanding the way this God works? Why should this God be labeled with a sex, why should this God wish to "communicate" with humans? Personally, I think pinning these human like attributes to a "God" is kind of ridiculous, but to each his own eh?

From what I have learned from my experiences and spiritual teachings, I now believe that religion is something to give human beings comfort, and also to give them a standard to live their lives by morally and ethically. I have a hard time taking any religion that is set in stone andthingsarethiswaywhetheryoulikeitornot. I like to learn about all religions possible, in order to broaden my spiritual views and beliefs.

I could keep going about what I believe about religion for probably 300 more pages, but this is just a little about what I believe.

[Sage the Mage]

And if there really is a God, how could we, as humans, bound by the rules of logic, possibly even come close to understanding the way this God works?
By speculative reason of course :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yay this again. Ill end it now; free will doesnt work with an omnipotent being. Just doesnt work at all. So that would be a big flaw in the bible.

No human being has free will, nor does scripture attest to it. Proverbs points this out on many occasions. We do however have choice, within the framework we exist in. THis choice is conditioned by our fundamental need of love, which is illuminated or darkened in accord with exposure to the Godhead. In short, the degree of freedom enjoyed by a human being is the degree to which he/she shares in the divine "live".

[Xaf]

You still use the word freedom, which would mean god is not controlling your choice.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Faith also commonly comes from trusting someone elses "direct experience" and really believing what they say is the truth.


I would refer to that as dogmatism.


Also, to me, I don't understand how anyone could say there is "one truth faith." Sure, people may think they're right and everyone else is dead wrong, but does that make them right?


You have just demonstrated adherence to a single truth by posting that notion of epistemology. Truth is found out by adherence to logic's simple rules, through a deliberative process.


I could say I believed in anything I wanted and claim it to be the truth.


You couldn't really, without settling on the notion that you were creating a truth, rather than discovering it.


And if there really is a God, how could we, as humans, bound by the rules of logic, possibly even come close to understanding the way this God works? Why should this God be labeled with a sex, why should this God wish to "communicate" with humans? Personally, I think pinning these human like attributes to a "God" is kind of ridiculous, but to each his own eh?


In terms of language regarding the Godhead, we can arrive on viable notions of this language by what is commonly called "negative theology" - ascertaining by means of reason what God cannot be. Alot of answers, including your query on communication, can be answered by a critical look at our own realitiy. By seeing our deepest needs, like love for instance, we can understand more clearly the nature of the Godhead.


From what I have learned from my experiences and spiritual teachings, I now believe that religion is something to give human beings comfort, and also to give them a standard to live their lives by morally and ethically. I have a hard time taking any religion that is set in stone andthingsarethiswaywhetheryoulikeitornot. I like to learn about all religions possible, in order to broaden my spiritual views and beliefs.


It is sad that most religious practices are representative of the machinations of social work. Religion is a vehicle to dispose the person to consider the divine, in everyday things.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You still use the word freedom, which would mean god is not controlling your choice.

And you still use the word controlling. There is no freedom without reference to slavery/control, and vice versa. Absurdity would be the definition of a dynamic universe of change, that exists only for causality. Humans are part of this dynamic. However, the only way to reconcile the free will/ determinism dilemma would be to introduce a third element that reconciles the two. The answer thus is beyond elements and inflencing powers of the physical universe, but an intermingling with, and becoming with God, who, by his being, transcends the temporal.

[Maullus]

Greetings,

I see forum thugs post drivel about how they hate religion, etc, with really no rhyme or reason to it. The subject deserves better than to simply be sidelined.

It isn't that I hate religion. I just find religion lacking. It doesn't deliver. It's a lovely concept, but one I can't ascribe to. I want to believe in something like that, but I just can't. Call it a lack of faith or whatever you like....

I don't presume to speak for the other "thugs," but since I myself have espoused the vices of religion from time to time, I do feel obliged to respond to this, not in my own words which would be inevitably flawed and inadequate in conveying the scope of the situation. Instead, I cite a few facts from James Haught's book, Holy Horrors, and a few from various other sources. (Given the title, the man is obviously biased, but the research regarding these facts is up-to-date, if not always entirely inclusive.)



The Aztecs were not alone, although they were the undisputed champions, murdering 20,000 victims each year to appease their gods. Religious human sacrifice was carried out in ancient Phoenicia, Gaul, Tibet, Africa (the Ashanti), and Borneo. The Mayans and Incas also regularly sacrificed humans to their gods, the Incas executing as many as 200 children at once during major ceremonies.
In Alexandria in the year 415, the great female scientist and head of the Alexandria Library, Hypatia, was beaten to death by Catholic monks who considered her scientific work heretical.
Since the 7th century the number of people killed in "jihads" or "holy" wars waged by various factions of Islam can only be vaguely guessed at. Several million would not be out of the question, and the number is increasing as this is being written.
In 1095 when Pope Urban II launched the first Crusade to take the Holy Land from the Muslims, the German Crusaders decided to first "kill the infidels among us" and slaughtered thousands of German Jews on the way to the Holy Land. The same thing happened to Jews in Prague, massacred by Christian Crusaders.
In 1208 Pope Innocent III decreed that a Catholic sect known as the Albigenses should be destroyed, all murdered, because they held heretical views such as the idea that Jesus was only an angel. The Crusading soldiers swept through southern France searching for these heretics. When they got to the city of Beziers, that was known to host many of the Albigenses, they asked a papal representative how they could distinguish the heretics from the truly faithful. The answer: "Kill them all. God will know His own."
In the 14th century tens of thousands of Jews were killed by Christians for "causing" the Black Death (bubonic plague). Reason? Because so many Jews survived the plague. Reason? Probably the Jewish rituals that include weekly cleansing of the body and changing into clean clothes.
In the 1500s when the Spanish invaded the Americas they brought the Inquisition with them. Demanding "instant" conversion to Catholicism from all the native inhabitants, backsliders were naturally common. And they were then killed by the Inquisition.
Thousands of Protestants fled France to avoid persecution and some of them ended up in what is now St. Augustine, Florida. In 1565 Catholic Spaniards discovered one such colony and killed almost every single person there. They then erected a sign that said the people had been executed "not as Frenchmen but as Lutherans."
On August 24, 1572, in France, the Catholics murdered thousands of Protestants in a single bloody day. It came to be known as the St. Bartholomew Day massacre.
In the 17th century the Church of England tried to eliminate the Puritans, using torture and sometimes hanging to achieve their ends. Then Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan, rose to power and led the Puritans into a backlash, resulting in civil war. When Cromwell died there was a backlash against Puritans again and Cromwell's body was exhumed, hanged and then decapitated. Death toll uncertain.
On July 1, 1766, in Abbeville, France, a teenage boy was decapitated for singing irreligious songs, marring a crucifix, mocking the Virgin Mary, and refusing to remove his hat when a religious procession passed.
Up until the 1800s the Hindus in India sacrificed a male child every Friday evening for the goddess Kali. Other Kali followers killed an estimated 2 million people over 300 years.
In the mid-1800s a Buddhist king in Burma ordered 500 people to be sacrificed to "sanctify" the new city walls of Mandalay.
In 1857 the East India Company incautiously armed themselves with rifle cartridges that were greased with animal fat. This enraged both Muslims and Hindus, the former finding pigs to be evil and the latter considering cows to be holy. Violence broke out leaving thousands dead.
In 1915 Christian Armenians and Turkish Muslims waged war on each other leaving an estimated 3 million dead.
Beginning in 1955 in the Sudan, Muslims and Christians waged a "holy" war lasting seventeen years and killing a half million people. In 1983 the same war flared up again, this time with the final result of one million dead in 24 years.
Up until 1965 the Roman Catholic Church's liturgy contained the words, "…and protect us from the perfidious Jews." In the Church's history scores of thousands of Jews were killed for (1) Murdering Christian children and drinking their blood; and (2) "Host-Nailing" meaning that they stole the communion wafers that represented the body of Jesus and drove nails through them, thereby crucifying Jesus a second time.
In the fifty years of Israel's existence, over 3,000 Israelis died as a result of Muslim suicide bombers, thousands more during various wars, and the religious clashes between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims continue to this day, as does the dying-on both sides.
In 1978 more than 900 people of the religious group, the Peoples Temple, died as victims of suicide/murders at their own hands, in Jonestown in Guyana, South America.
In the 1980s Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini ruled by means of cruel torture and killings. Secrecy surrounds the number of victims, but thousands are certainly dead because of his religious oppression.
In 1980 at Moradabad, India, a riot broke out between Muslims and Hindus because the former believed the latter had intentionally driven a pig to walk over Muslim holy ground. 200 died.
In the 1980s Iran's Shi'ite theocracy killed around 200 Baha'i believers who would not convert to Islam.
On June 17, 1993, a six-year-old girl died after being struck by a moving train in Dania, Florida. She was thrown 20 feet and suffered a broken neck. Her brother had pushed her to safety, but she rushed back onto the tracks to die so she could be in heaven, waiting for her terminally ill mother.
On January 13, 1999 in Ahmedabad, India, Hindu mobs attacked and set fire to two Christian chapels in an ongoing religious struggle.


Now, I know that some of these might be misleading. The reference to the East India Company, for example, does not make mention of harsh policies imposed on the Indian people, or any number of other contributing factors that resulted in the rebellion. My advice is to take the literal meaning of these with a grain of salt, while still extracting the essential trend that they reveal. Religion is not, in and of itself, wrong or evil. Religions usually have good intentions. It is the application by man that leads to this behavior, but since we cannot separate man and religion, we must take them as they are.

Religions would have us believe that they can raise us up, make us more then we are. I believe religions have a tendency to drag us down, to keep us at a point of narrow-minded intolerance, of fear, and of bigotry, all of which lead to violence. We are better then that. Or we could be.

[Lazzmodai]

I'm not sure what this "holy spin" is you refer to. What I do know however is that you just backed out of an important discussion we had on another thread. Why must we have these discussions? For that very reason. I see forum thugs post drivel about how they hate religion, etc, with really no rhyme or reason to it. The subject deserves better than to simply be sidelined.
I do not question any of that. But this was supposed to be a thread about philosophy and while you may argue theology and philsophy to be inseparable, again a thread that had potential to be very interesting has been overrun by religious discourse. Nothing against that subject, of course, but at least start a new thread instead of constantly redirecting others.

[Khal'jur]

I would refer to that as dogmatism.



You have just demonstrated adherence to a single truth by posting that notion of epistemology. Truth is found out by adherence to logic's simple rules, through a deliberative process.



You couldn't really, without settling on the notion that you were creating a truth, rather than discovering it.



In terms of language regarding the Godhead, we can arrive on viable notions of this language by what is commonly called "negative theology" - ascertaining by means of reason what God cannot be. Alot of answers, including your query on communication, can be answered by a critical look at our own realitiy. By seeing our deepest needs, like love for instance, we can understand more clearly the nature of the Godhead.



It is sad that most religious practices are representative of the machinations of social work. Religion is a vehicle to dispose the person to consider the divine, in everyday things.

This is still just your opinion, is it not? Or do you think you're "right"?

[Xaf]

And you still use the word controlling. There is no freedom without reference to slavery/control, and vice versa. Absurdity would be the definition of a dynamic universe of change, that exists only for causality. Humans are part of this dynamic. However, the only way to reconcile the free will/ determinism dilemma would be to introduce a third element that reconciles the two. The answer thus is beyond elements and inflencing powers of the physical universe, but an intermingling with, and becoming with God, who, by his being, transcends the temporal.

Ok im not exactly sure how this relates. I dont see free-will/determinism as a dilemma, its just logic that you cant have freedom with an omnipotent being. Anything you do, any choice you make, would have been made for you by how you were created. If you have a choice then the being that created you is not omnipotent.

And btw our deepest need is not love, its survival. Love is just part of the need to survive.

[SpiritWalker]

THat's really no excuse for not discussing it.
Yes it, because I am not getting into the xxxxmillionth flaming religion thread here.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Greetings,



It isn't that I hate religion. I just find religion lacking. It doesn't deliver. It's a lovely concept, but one I can't ascribe to. I want to believe in something like that, but I just can't. Call it a lack of faith or whatever you like....

I don't presume to speak for the other "thugs," but since I myself have espoused the vices of religion from time to time, I do feel obliged to respond to this, not in my own words which would be inevitably flawed and inadequate in conveying the scope of the situation. Instead, I cite a few facts from James Haught's book, Holy Horrors, and a few from various other sources. (Given the title, the man is obviously biased, but the research regarding these facts is up-to-date, if not always entirely inclusive.)


For the record, I don't consider you a thug lol :p. Religion is essentially a series of patters that predisposes one to the divine. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. But, I'll assert that everyone has a certain form of religion that orders them to trust in a certain object of belief and/or salvation, and that could be God, a hobby, or even your g/f.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I do not question any of that. But this was supposed to be a thread about philosophy and while you may argue theology and philsophy to be inseparable, again a thread that had potential to be very interesting has been overrun by religious discourse. Nothing against that subject, of course, but at least start a new thread instead of constantly redirecting others.

I'll offer that any philosophical discorse, if following the maxims and demands of reason, will eventually touch base with religion. It's really not all that intimidating. Perhaps I'm too objective for my own good.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

This is still just your opinion, is it not? Or do you think you're "right"?

If you want to discuss it further, we can talk about "truth and opinion". It's one of the oldest problems in philosophy. I answered your post clearly enough, you may take it further from there if you wish.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok im not exactly sure how this relates. I dont see free-will/determinism as a dilemma, its just logic that you cant have freedom with an omnipotent being. Anything you do, any choice you make, would have been made for you by how you were created. If you have a choice then the being that created you is not omnipotent.


I mentioned a few times that we can only have this freedom in accord with the type of beings we are. Since we're subject to "elemental powers" as it were - like time and space, we dont have the freedom of eternity and substance that the Godhead has for instance. We do have a degree of freedom in the aspects of our person that transcend the merely corporeal - namely, our intellects. Psychological determinism has its influence, but not its rulership.


And btw our deepest need is not love, its survival. Love is just part of the need to survive.

What then is the purpose of survival?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yes it, because I am not getting into the xxxxmillionth flaming religion thread here.

I believe we've got a good group of posters here, I think we're better than that. Even the "thugs" are ok now and then :p.

[Father Jack]

THis is the notion that requires qualification. To espouse any profession of faith, a viable groundwork for assent to that belief must first be established. I will argue that after subjecting content to the laws of reason, there really can only be certain options available for belief in terms of having faith. Having faith entails "faith in" an object of some sort. THere can only be one true faith, as there is only one reality. Disagree with that? I'm happy to entertain your questions.

let me clarify.
From Websters; Faith,noun,2.bfirm belief in something for which there is no proof.
If there is no proof why argue, by definition it can never be proven.

This challenge was not presented to scripture, but to a particular literal reading thereof. Uneducated scholars have no place in brushing aside the sacred text.

I wasn't clear on the specifics of this only that his discovery that the earth moved contradicted a passage in the bible that said the Earth didn't.

"The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved." -Psalms 104:5

So is this a metaphor, since now we know that the earth does move?

Also I'm not clear on weather I am the uneducated scholar or Galileo or his Accusers who were reading the passage literally? I admit I am no religious scholar, (don't let my avatar fool you):teeth:.


Fallible in what sense? To say that God cannot work his "perfect will" through "fallible" mediums, is to place a limit on God. It is also an inconsistency to label what is fallible, and what is not. This would presume an understanding of laws, and indeed, power over the concept of fallibility, which is beyond the human being's power.

I just meant that God made us human, he made us able to make mistakes. Just like those people who persecuted Galileo made a mistake. If the bible was written by men, copied by men, translated by men and interpreted by men, then it is possible they made mistakes. Even the gospels tell the same story from different perspectives. It doesn't decreas the wisdom they contain.

You know I really didn't want to get into a religious debate. The intention of my post was to defuse any debate not be drawn into one. If I made statements you felt you needed to challege, I'm sorry.

[Ifrit18]

Touchy topic here, anyways....

My view of religon is up to the individual. What that person believes is up to themselves.

Only time I think religon goes too far is when discrimination or violence becomes an issue.

I wish religon wasn't such a touchy subject but thats not for me to decide, its up to people.

[Xaf]

I mentioned a few times that we can only have this freedom in accord with the type of beings we are. Since we're subject to "elemental powers" as it were - like time and space, we dont have the freedom of eternity and substance that the Godhead has for instance. We do have a degree of freedom in the aspects of our person that transcend the merely corporeal - namely, our intellects. Psychological determinism has its influence, but not its rulership.

And how exactly is the intellect free(even if it was incorporal)? Was it not created by god as well?



What then is the purpose of survival?

What purpose does gravity have, or momentum? They are just abiding by the laws of the universe. Our instincts of survival which life is based on arejust the universe playing itself out. I consider humans to be just another phenomenon of nature like a sun or a black hole.

[stacker55]

And if there really is a God, how could we, as humans, bound by the rules of logic, possibly even come close to understanding the way this God works? Why should this God be labeled with a sex, why should this God wish to "communicate" with humans? Personally, I think pinning these human like attributes to a "God" is kind of ridiculous, but to each his own eh?

just to clear this one up, i do not think that god is a male or a female. or that he has dark hair or light, but this verse counters what you said

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[stacker55]

i'm a little proud that my post started the religion spin off of this thread, i'm 18 and havent been the poster child for church going in my life but i am very interested in others reviews of my religion, i can debate certain things but my problem is not having much valueable information to back it up. AoA you are a little intimidating to respond to because its just like this stuff you type is second nature and flows from your fingertips. i'm guessing you are a philosophy major/grad? i dont like to get into free will because i dont know how to argue it, what i do feel strongly about is the idea that man is imperfect and will make mistakes. It just came to me, an idea that could be considered blasphemy, but one could say that god made a grave mistake in allowing lucifer to exist and fall. it may have been predestined for there to be two opposite forces but that is also debatable, this idea however would make God imperfect. hopefully someone has a clarification on this. anyways, i do believe that man could have tainted the bible in its translations and even its formation. there are two things that come to mind, one is the opposing beliefs that once in grace always in grace, and grace by faith. i believe in once in grace always in grace. (this is one of those times that i wish i could pull up a verse) it says that once you are saved then you are saved, you are a christian and you always will be. BUT some people say that man can fall from god and lose his faith. in this case i believe that when you are saved your life changes permanently and you no longer would want or could "fall from god" and if you have then you were never truly saved in the beginning. another notion that i believe the bible contradicts is the process of being saved. my old science teacher (i despise talking with him, he's a fanatic when it comes to politicians and never allows any room for views that contradict his own) his church believes that you MUST be baptised to become saved and go to heaven, where as i believe that all you must do to become saved is pray to god, ask forgiveness for your sins, and ask him to guide you in your life. i see being baptised as a public showing of your faith but not a requirement for heaven. i'm going to stop now because i've typed far to much, maybe someone can elaborate

[AgeOfAbnegation]

let me clarify.

If there is no proof why argue, by definition it can never be proven.


If there was ever a notion that I combated so furiously on these forums, it would be that one. Not that "faith" can be proven rather, but that the scientific method for epistemology seems to be the only method posters around here are aware of. Of course, God, or "the faith" cannot be "proven" by means of the scientific method, and anyone who says otherwise is a dogmatist. However, these forums are home to yet another form of dogmatist - the skeptic. By means of the scientific method however, we can uncover available options for belief, and coupled with our power of reasoning, arriving at options for belief is suprisingly a simple matter. We are then in a position to look at other considerations like philosophical anthropology, psychological considerations, and of course, revelation.


I wasn't clear on the specifics of this only that his discovery that the earth moved contradicted a passage in the bible that said the Earth didn't.

"The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved." -Psalms 104:5

So is this a metaphor, since now we know that the earth does move?

Also I'm not clear on weather I am the uneducated scholar or Galileo or his Accusers who were reading the passage literally? I admit I am no religious scholar, (don't let my avatar fool you):teeth:.


Even the astrologers back then knew the movement of the earth, as well as the medieval scholastics. THe ancient greeks, mesopotamians, persians, babylonains, and egyptians had some knowledge of this as well. In the hebrew text, alot of the language is metaphorical. This passage is to be taken in terms of cosmology - whereby "reality" and its laws are fixed.


I just meant that God made us human, he made us able to make mistakes. Just like those people who persecuted Galileo made a mistake. If the bible was written by men, copied by men, translated by men and interpreted by men, then it is possible they made mistakes. Even the gospels tell the same story from different perspectives. It doesn't decreas the wisdom they contain.


God does not write scripture for himself, but rather for human beings. What's also taken into account is the path of a person's life, which will always be filled with this and that problem or hurtle, all the time. Call it an "interactive text". The texts were written by men, but inspired by God, and collected over the centuries. Translation issues need not be a problem, as hermenutics and other methods of liguistics and interpretation are not so subject to the grave errors you make reference to, especially not over hundreds of years, with literally thousands of scholars. Regardless of that however, interpretations are viable enough for the texts to be understood as intended, with teaching to offer insight on passages which may seem confusing.


You know I really didn't want to get into a religious debate. The intention of my post was to defuse any debate not be drawn into one. If I made statements you felt you needed to challege, I'm sorry.

Lol.. Why be sorry? I delight in these threads. I'd say that if a person's position is challenged, its an opportunity for happiness - any "true" position fears no detractors. Just dive in.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And how exactly is the intellect free(even if it was incorporal)? Was it not created by god as well?


All created beings share to some degree in the being of the creator. The degree to which can be explained in terms of hierarchy of powers and perfections. THe intellect is a power held by the human being, which shares more closely in the being of the Godhead moreso than a lesser creature aspect, like plants. The intellect is free by its very nature, but in terms of humans, there is a degree of influence from our bodies, yet this influence is total only if we allow it to be.


What purpose does gravity have, or momentum? They are just abiding by the laws of the universe. Our instincts of survival which life is based on arejust the universe playing itself out. I consider humans to be just another phenomenon of nature like a sun or a black hole.

Ok, who runs the game? Love is the driving force for all action, even the evil.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

i'm a little proud that my post started the religion spin off of this thread,


lol, you're new around here. In this case, your naievete of the regular posters around here allowed you to post that topic - most avoid it. I for one, love talking about it.


i'm 18 and havent been the poster child for church going in my life but i am very interested in others reviews of my religion, i can debate certain things but my problem is not having much valueable information to back it up. AoA you are a little intimidating to respond to because its just like this stuff you type is second nature and flows from your fingertips. i'm guessing you are a philosophy major/grad?


Yes, I've been "in the loop" for a while. I'm writing my first text ATM, titled "reason and desire". Don't feel intimidated however, that only implies you're scared of having your own point of view debunked. DIve in man, subject your opinions and beliefs to everything, see if they survive. But in that however, start reading texts by respected thinkers, they teach us to think clearly.


i dont like to get into free will because i dont know how to argue it, what i do feel strongly about is the idea that man is imperfect and will make mistakes.


Free will was a topic I just started thinking about 2 years ago, and it's been one of the more difficult ones to deal with. Remember though, there's always a solution to everything, because the question actually exists, and demands a solution.


It just came to me, an idea that could be considered blasphemy, but one could say that god made a grave mistake in allowing lucifer to exist and fall. it may have been predestined for there to be two opposite forces but that is also debatable, this idea however would make God imperfect.


I know just the text for you to look at. It's pointless to discuss theology without having an adequate understanding of metaphysics. These "dual powers" you assent to, like zoroastarianism, is impossible. This is because there can be only one perfection. If this perfection was multifaceted, it would fail to exist.


hopefully someone has a clarification on this. anyways, i do believe that man could have tainted the bible in its translations and even its formation.


This could happen only under the auspices of dishonesty and agenda, which did indeed happen a few times.


there are two things that come to mind, one is the opposing beliefs that once in grace always in grace, and grace by faith. i believe in once in grace always in grace. (this is one of those times that i wish i could pull up a verse) it says that once you are saved then you are saved, you are a christian and you always will be. BUT some people say that man can fall from god and lose his faith. in this case i believe that when you are saved your life changes permanently and you no longer would want or could "fall from god" and if you have then you were never truly saved in the beginning.


No, one can certainly fall away, as scripture attests to. God's not going to play your part of your relationship with him - you have to do your part. Try not talking to your g/f for a week or so lol..


another notion that i believe the bible contradicts is the process of being saved. my old science teacher (i despise talking with him, he's a fanatic when it comes to politicians and never allows any room for views that contradict his own) his church believes that you MUST be baptised to become saved and go to heaven, where as i believe that all you must do to become saved is pray to god, ask forgiveness for your sins, and ask him to guide you in your life. i see being baptised as a public showing of your faith but not a requirement for heaven. i'm going to stop now because i've typed far to much, maybe someone can elaborate

Baptism is a symbolic reality, but still very powerful. There are baptisms by water, by blood, and by the will.

[Sage the Mage]

stacker55, please remember paragraphs next time. It would make it easier to read; sorry if I'm being rude.

...However, these forums are home to yet another form of dogmatist - the skeptic. By means of the scientific method however, we can uncover available options for belief, and coupled with our power of reasoning, arriving at options for belief is suprisingly a simple matter. We are then in a position to look at other considerations like philosophical anthropology, psychological considerations, and of course, revelation.
You just keep on bringing this back up :)

Here's my problem: You can't say, "Well god must be able to do this, this, and this" without actually having a good reason why and still be provable. "Because I think that this must be true," just doesn't work, you must attest to either evidence or some logical rule.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You just keep on bringing this back up :)


Why must I keep doing that? :scratch: ^^



Here's my problem: You can't say, "Well god must be able to do this, this, and this" without actually having a good reason why and still be provable. "Because I think that this must be true," just doesn't work, you must attest to either evidence or some logical rule.

The "because of this" comes by means of logical rule. I am delighted however that you're beginning to assent to logical rules, as well as empirical methods.

[Sage the Mage]

I am delighted however that you're beginning to assent to logical rules, as well as empirical methods.
There's a fine line between correct logic and your logic :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sage, I look forward to some substance to your quips.

[Eiger]

Another thread gone to hell...

[Sage the Mage]

You look forward to the day when I'm not lazy :)

Hrm the simplest way to explain it would be trying to give properties to things stated as being outside of material existance.

[Khal'jur]

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I personally do not believe in the Bible. The only thing that I myself think the Bible is a good source of is that of metaphorical moral lessons.

[Xaf]

All created beings share to some degree in the being of the creator. The degree to which can be explained in terms of hierarchy of powers and perfections. THe intellect is a power held by the human being, which shares more closely in the being of the Godhead moreso than a lesser creature aspect, like plants. The intellect is free by its very nature, but in terms of humans, there is a degree of influence from our bodies, yet this influence is total only if we allow it to be.

Why exactly is the intellect free by its very nature? Are you saying it is outside of gods power?


Ok, who runs the game? Love is the driving force for all action, even the evil.

Ok, for one i dont think evil exists. There is no difference between evil and good except for our perception of it. As for who runs the game, i have no idea. Thats why i would label myself agnostic; i'm not arrogant enough to think i know.

One thing i do think though is(note this is just an opinion), that if this is a game, we are just the biproduct of it, not the reason for the game. Sort of like the little civilization lisa creates in her petree dish.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger - What would you consider a constructive and progressive thread? Comparing baseball to politics? :scratch:


You look forward to the day when I'm not lazy :)


Yes, it would certainly help us get somewhere. I'm sure if you tackled my posts with some textual reference or critique, we could take things pretty far.


Hrm the simplest way to explain it would be trying to give properties to things stated as being outside of material existance.

Ok, so by this you mean that we overstep ourselves when talking about things that are beyond us? I agree with that, and have taken time to tell you before that we can discuss what cant be perfectly grasped by an inquiry of what it cannot be, in accord with logical premises for the things that are. Aristotle's metaphysics was the most brilliant text of the ancient world. The amazing thing is that its still valid today, and Kant readily attested to. This is because of immutible concepts in reasoning, which comes before the application of the scientic method.

[Sage the Mage]

Ok, so by this you mean that we overstep ourselves when talking about things that are beyond us?
Yes if you attest to something being beyond us, assuming beyond the universe, then I say its beyond logic. Why? The rules of logic are formed from the rules of the universe. To try and apply logic to anything outside the universe is to apply the rules of the universe to something outside of it, making it part of the universe in the process.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Why exactly is the intellect free by its very nature? Are you saying it is outside of gods power?


No, I'm saying that it shares in the "divine essence". It "partakes" to a degree in the attributes of God. Aquinas wrote some good material on this. Take a look at summa theologica, first part, questions 74-78. Aristotle's de anima (of the soul) helps too. Your idea of God is still a humanistic one - just a cosmic tough guy that runs the show. Ask me for clarification if need be.


Ok, for one i dont think evil exists. There is no difference between evil and good except for our perception of it. As for who runs the game, i have no idea. Thats why i would label myself agnostic; i'm not arrogant enough to think i know.


But you may be arrogant enough to assume it cannot be known. True humility is discovering truth, not setting its boundaries by skepticism. Your second sentance resembles the passage in Genesis about the "tree of good and evil". You'll note that the knowledge of good and evil here referred to the human capacity to name it. This subjective assignment of value is an act of participating in evil simply because evil is an absense of good. Since the truth creater bases an entire cosmology on merely human arbitration, this is an immersion in evil, instead of a discovery of objective laws and norms.

[GaiaWombat]

*sigh*

Why can't there be just one intellectual debate in this forum that does not involve religion and politics? I know these two things are very important to people. These things are very important to me. However, I know I am not alone when I say that these kinds of arguments are possibly some of the worst topics of discussion I can think of. AoA, I understand that you enjoy debating and I truly appreciate the constant defense you give us religious guys. For myself, though, I try to avoid these like the plague because I simply can't bear to watch people become so angry and so frustrated while neither ever moves an inch. I personally dislike being angry with other people and will try to avoid things which would give me reason to do this as much as possible.

So, in short, can we please leave the religious and political debates in the million other topics we have on them? While some may enjoy them, others(like myself) can't stand it, and it really isn't fair to us. Thanks.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The rules of logic are formed from the rules of the universe.

THis is where you err. Kant, the perennial instructor in logic, would not dare to even posit a physical universe. He postulated it by means of logic, but did not assert it. Logic does not come from these "rules of the universe". These rules are discovered BY logic. The a priori "Pure" reason preceeds all of this, and is what I tried to tell you for months.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

*sigh*

Why can't there be just one intellectual debate in this forum that does not involve religion and politics?


Propose one.


I know these two things are very important to people. These things are very important to me. However, I know I am not alone when I say that these kinds of arguments are possibly some of the worst topics of discussion I can think of.


Nobody is focing you to click your way onto this thread.


AoA, I understand that you enjoy debating and I truly appreciate the constant defense you give us religious guys.


I dont defend religious people, but defend the correct use of reason. After reading this, if you would call yourself a religious person, I would refrain from calling myself one.


For myself, though, I try to avoid these like the plague because I simply can't bear to watch people become so angry and so frustrated while neither ever moves an inch. I personally dislike being angry with other people and will try to avoid things which would give me reason to do this as much as possible.


Thus far, the thread has been progressing fine. Choosing peace for its mere appearance is a bandaid solution. The reason its touchy to most people is becasue it IS a personal big issue, it has relevance. You cant avoid questions about your maker - they will eventually catch up. Nobody is getting angry here. The other notion I would contend with you is the fact that every issue must be resolved right away. Discussion need not have the appearance of progression in your eyes in order for it to be beneficial. As much as Xaf and Sage disagree with me, I still enjoy talking to them, and they sill ask me questions. Wether in the end they stick me the finger and say they dont give a damn is nether here nor there. It's dialog that has taken place, which is better than none at all.


So, in short, can we please leave the religious and political debates in the million other topics we have on them? While some may enjoy them, others(like myself) can't stand it, and it really isn't fair to us. Thanks.

If you cant stand them, please do yourself a favor and log off, or head somewhere else. You have no place to discuss what is "fair" by posting this kind of article here, for the above reasons.

[Xaf]

No, I'm saying that it shares in the "divine essence". It "partakes" to a degree in the attributes of God. Aquinas wrote some good material on this. Take a look at summa theologica, first part, questions 74-78. Aristotle's de anima (of the soul) helps too. Your idea of God is still a humanistic one - just a cosmic tough guy that runs the show. Ask me for clarification if need be.

Actually thats not my idea at all, thats what you want my idea to be as it is easier to deal with. Ill try and see if i can find what you recomend online but i have a feeling it will just be a diversion.

But you may be arrogant enough to assume it cannot be known. True humility is discovering truth, not setting its boundaries by skepticism. Your second sentance resembles the passage in Genesis about the "tree of good and evil". You'll note that the knowledge of good and evil here referred to the human capacity to name it. This subjective assignment of value is an act of participating in evil simply because evil is an absense of good. Since the truth creater bases an entire cosmology on merely human arbitration, this is an immersion in evil, instead of a discovery of objective laws and norms.

I wont assume it can not be known, if i did why would i be talking to you? I dont know the answers, but i am highly critical of anyone who claims they do.

Not sure what you are going for in the second part so i will just try to clarify what i meant in my second sentance.

Evil and good are just what we use to label things we dont understand. They have a supernatural conontation to them which stems from(like religion) our misunderstanding something. For example people label terrorists evil, when in reality it is just a combination of genetics, basic instincts, how they were raised, their rolemodels and the society they live in. The acts they commit may be terrible but in no way does satan or god need to be involved.

[Sage the Mage]

THis is where you err. Kant, the perennial instructor in logic, would not dare to even posit a physical universe. He postulated it by means of logic, but did not assert it. Logic does not come from these "rules of the universe". These rules are discovered BY logic. The a priori "Pure" reason preceeds all of this, and is what I tried to tell you for months.
I'd like you to explain why the rules of logic must exist outside the universe :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'd like you to explain why the rules of logic must exist outside the universe :)

Frankly, the universe is described in terms of space and time, whereby its a theatre of movement, causality, change etc. This really has nothing do do with an inherent method of thought per se. As I mentioned earlier, there is a part of us that is above this theatre - which is our minds. In regards to time, the mind is still outside time due to its reflective and contemplative aspects, and the intellect is not directly subject to this physical, temporal movement. It's only subject to space and time in regards to its source of data, which comes from the corporeal body's senses. Simply because our logic "transcends the universe" as you say, we have a means of discovering how it works, whereby if that was not the case, we would be completely immersed in it - part of it - and could not take a critical distance from it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Actually thats not my idea at all, thats what you want my idea to be as it is easier to deal with. Ill try and see if i can find what you recomend online but i have a feeling it will just be a diversion.


Well try it anyway, it can't hurt.


I wont assume it can not be known, if i did why would i be talking to you? I dont know the answers, but i am highly critical of anyone who claims they do.


That's fine, but there's a new opportunity to be critical now of your methodology, and skepticism.


Not sure what you are going for in the second part so i will just try to clarify what i meant in my second sentance.

Evil and good are just what we use to label things we dont understand. They have a supernatural conontation to them which stems from(like religion) our misunderstanding something. For example people label terrorists evil, when in reality it is just a combination of genetics, basic instincts, how they were raised, their rolemodels and the society they live in. The acts they commit may be terrible but in no way does satan or god need to be involved.

You've outlined one part of the game, which is conditioning and influence - I'm not disagreeing with any of that aspect, as it is indeed a part of it. You however made this one side of the coin an absolute. My argument against that is the universe simply could not (and the human being could not) operate by means of that absolute determinist model. As such, I'm offering some commentary on the human intellect so we can see how this problem can be dealt with consistently.

[Sage the Mage]

Frankly, the universe is described in terms of space and time, whereby its a theatre of movement, causality, change etc. This really has nothing do do with an inherent method of thought per se. As I mentioned earlier, there is a part of us that is above this theatre - which is our minds.
In regards to time, the mind is still outside time due to its reflective and contemplative aspects, and the intellect is not directly subject to this physical, temporal movement. It's only subject to space and time in regards to its source of data, which comes from the corporeal body's senses. Simply because our logic "transcends the universe" as you say, we have a means of discovering how it works, whereby if that was not the case, we would be completely immersed in it - part of it - and could not take a critical distance from it.
I asked, why is logic transcends the universe. You are talking about why thought is. These two things are not one and the same, as obviously not everyone uses logic when they think. You also mention "our logic" which would imply that there are different logics.

I'd would like you to explain what you mean by "reflective and contemplative aspects." too. If you mean memory, then well I've got memory in my computer and you already have stated that a computer is not beyond the universe.

[SynthetiCyclone]

Lack of power is bliss :clap:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I asked, why is logic transcends the universe. You are talking about why thought is.


They are the same, actually. What's at stake is the degree to which thought is followed through. The inherent process of thought is what's at stake, and that's on a much higher plane than rocks, lakes, and trees. Wether a person is a genius or reliative dumb, the mechanics of thought still follow logic. The "logical" person is he/she who has discovered this inherent way of reasoning, and is able to outline it better with reference to objects, as we see in the syllogism.


You also mention "our logic" which would imply that there are different logics.


No, that implication could not be taken from that text. "our" refers to the human race. Logic only belongs to the human race due to our physical and incorporeal makeup.


I'd would like you to explain what you mean by "reflective and contemplative aspects." too. If you mean memory, then well I've got memory in my computer and you already have stated that a computer is not beyond the universe.

If you're going to compare human memory to synthetic code, there's definitely something wrong. I could store candy in a cupboard, but would that be honestly compared to the mind?

[Sage the Mage]

They are the same, actually. What's at stake is the degree to which thought is followed through. The inherent process of thought is what's at stake, and that's on a much higher plane than rocks, lakes, and trees. Wether a person is a genius or reliative dumb, the mechanics of thought still follow logic. The "logical" person is he/she who has discovered this inherent way of reasoning, and is able to outline it better with reference to objects, as we see in the syllogism.
Syllogism is a funny word to say :)

You still haven't explained why logic is beyond the universe...you just say that it is. Why is it?

If you're going to compare human memory to synthetic code, there's definitely something wrong.
What exactly is wrong with comparing human memory to memory, such as ram?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You still haven't explained why logic is beyond the universe...you just say that it is. Why is it?

If I failed in that, it would be because of a definition of the universe. The universe does not include the intellect, but is a cosmos of space and time. I did mention that. I also mentioned that logic is the simple means of thinking - the composing and dividing action of reason.

What exactly is wrong with comparing human memory to memory, such as ram?

Im going to answer that by allowing you to explore it yourself. How do you understand the human mind?

[blindcside]

hoo-hah. yes.

[Sage the Mage]

The universe does not include the intellect, but is a cosmos of space and time. I did mention that. I also mentioned that logic is the simple means of thinking - the composing and dividing action of reason.
You're still saying, "Because it is."

Im going to answer that by allowing you to explore it yourself. How do you understand the human mind?
A computer that learns.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You're still saying, "Because it is."


You mean to tell me you couldn't make out any explanation from what I typed?



A computer that learns.

Care to go into further detail?

[Sage the Mage]

You mean to tell me you couldn't make out any explanation from what I typed? No, I mean to say your explaination is simply, "Because it is."

Care to go into further detail? That's pretty much all the detail I need to describe how I understand the mind, its a computer with the ability to learn new things.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok, well I offered to explain that that the universe by definition dealt with solely corporeal realities, while at the same time I attested to the mind being incorporeal. If I would post explanation of the incorporealness of the mind, it would be no different than the many times I wrote threads on it before, and you seem to have a good memory since you paraphrase me often, anticipating what my reply will be at times.

Furthermore, you were honest enough to admit you were "lasy" a page or so back, which doesn't exactly lend itself to progressive education. To really get a grasp on these concepts, a person has to grapple with the texts. I have pinpointed a few key texts that you could look at iif you so wished. Anyway, you can do a little legwork if you like, since posting one-shot snide replies with smilies isn't really getting us anywhere.

[Sage the Mage]

Furthermore, you were honest enough to admit you were "lasy" a page or so back, which doesn't exactly lend itself to progressive education.
You know damn well I said lazy and not "lasy." Now...you shall concede to me your beta account.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

heh, how about I kick your Horde a$$ at retail? (if indeed you're playing horde). Hey.. that gives me an idea for a new thread..

[Drakeon]

... Man I wanted a debate on the topic, not another debate on religion..

*sighes and leaves thread*

[SpiritWalker]

I had a post which took me like 20mins to write, explaining some of the stuff wrong with the bible, then I hit the "submit reply" button, after which I got very angry, cause windows gave an error.. :grrr:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

haha, God pwnt j00 ^^.

[SpiritWalker]

haha, God pwnt j00 ^^.
LIES.. Blasphemer :(

[Andarcel]

... Man I wanted a debate on the topic, not another debate on religion..

*sighes and leaves thread*
It was a crappy topic to begin with.

A computer that learns. Do you think computers have feelings, emotions, experiences? It seems unlikely, since for us our experiences clearly have a causal impact on our behavior (if I were an automaton without experiences, for example, I wouldn't be writing this post because it would make no sense to me to talk of "experiences" distinct from behavior). Computers have as yet shown no signs of experiencing in their behavior.

If computers do have a sentient capacity, don't you think we are then obligated to treat them as moral agents? Would opening up your computer and switching hard drives be equivalent to, say, vivisecting a dog?

[Sage the Mage]

Do you think computers have feelings, emotions, experiences? It seems unlikely, since for us our experiences clearly have a causal impact on our behavior (if I were an automaton without experiences, for example, I wouldn't be writing this post because it would make no sense to me to talk of "experiences" distinct from behavior). Computers have as yet shown no signs of experiencing in their behavior.
That's why I said a computer that learns, not a computer.

[Andarcel]

That's why I said a computer that learns, not a computer.
Clearly we have very different definitions of "learning." Please define.

[Sage the Mage]

Yeah I was unclear. All that crap you listed is basically beyond human ability to code perfectly, I think. Why? Because we won't ever understand it.

Anyway I never implied a sentinent capacity in computers :)
AoA asked me to describe how the mind works, and I stated a computer that learns.

[Andarcel]

Yeah I was unclear. All that crap you listed is basically beyond human ability to code perfectly, I think. Why? Because we won't ever understand it.

Anyway I never implied a sentinent capacity in computers :)
AoA asked me to describe how the mind works, and I stated a computer that learns.
And I think that answer is inadequate, and it's inadequacy is very relevant to the discussion. I think you already know that. The quality of sentience is clearly not on a par with the rest of the universe; it has an empirical association with certain forms of matter, but it's conceptually totally alien to the phenomenal world, which is what we usually mean when we say "universe." Just possessing this quality means we possess something which stands apart from the world of behavior, and this is the something which might make the sort of reasoning we do totally different from a computer's.

A computer is simply a complex interactions of particles. It can't be said to actually "process information," because an arrangement of particles can only be said to contain information when seen by a sentient being. If human beings reason in the same way that a computer does, then it's really just a series of complex physical properties shaped by evolution to force us to respond appropriately to different stimuli.

If that's the case, then you're right: nothing in ou reason transcends the universe; in fact, we could not really be said to be reasoning at all. Any conclusions we draw are right only coincidentally. In fact, you could ask whether it's even meaningful to talk of right and wrong, because we could never judge these things in even the simplest of cases.

But if we're simply employing our cranial hardware to process information in the same way we employ computers, while the true acts of reason occur in our sentience, then we have good reason to think that the logical exercise might actually be logic.

Now, back to your answer.

Do you believe humans are sentient? Because if computers aren't, and you view human minds as learning computers, then it logically follows that humans are basically machines as well, incapable of feeling. Nor is sentience a simple product of complexity; there are many complex systems, but only very specific sorts give rise to experiencing entities. You can't simply try and make it some feature of things that is so difficult to grasp that we could never artificially replicate it. That's a tempting easy out, but it doesn't work. All the galaxy taken together could be called a far more complex system than a human being, but human beings are sentient and galaxies aren't. (If you want me to give you the full argument to that effect, I can, but it would take quite a while). And it doesn't seem any more difficult to understand than space, time, and energy, and we work with these every day. It may not be simple - most things aren't when you you look closely - but it's not some imponderable mystery. Or if it is, you're going to have to prove to me that it is imponderable.

[Sage the Mage]

One more time - The brain/mind is like a computer
Its got input (senses), output (actions), a CPU (brain), and memory (brain), and an OS (the mind/consciousness/whatever)

I'm not trying to draw any revolutionary theories here. The main difference I see between a computer and a human's mind/brian in function is the ability to actually learn things, which the mind does.

I don't think you can perfectly understand how the mind works, due to it being a completely abstract concept. The universe can be examined, wheras you can't really examine the mind.

[Tso Za Naoa]

Stop it! I can't take it anymore! Kill me quick, I want it to end.

Kill me NOW, get a gun, sharp knife, a big truck, a cliff, an orangutan with a 1 1/4" box wrench, ANYTHING just make it stop!!!!

[Lazzmodai]

Stop it! I can't take it anymore! Kill me quick, I want it to end.

Kill me NOW, get a gun, sharp knife, a big truck, a cliff, an orangutan with a 1 1/4" box wrench, ANYTHING just make it stop!!!!
Best. Post. EVER.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Stop it! I can't take it anymore! Kill me quick, I want it to end.

Kill me NOW, get a gun, sharp knife, a big truck, a cliff, an orangutan with a 1 1/4" box wrench, ANYTHING just make it stop!!!!

'Sif. Take your trolling elsewhere.

If you guys can't handle conversation on deeper matters that you believe "don't go anywhere", than do us a favor and stay the hell off these threads. Go make a thread on what your favorite candy is, but don't soil our discussions here.

[Sage the Mage]

These discussions don't go anywhere AoA :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If they don't, why do you insist on having the last word? That merely demonstrates you're ability to troll threads, not your ability to debate points concisively and with earnest. So far, you've discarded anything Andarcel and I have posted in your regard, offering mere quips with smilies, just like you did just now.

Regardless, I enjoy these threads, as I'm sure a few others do as well. THreads shouldnt be discarded because a few whiners can't handle it.

[Sage the Mage]

Yes, the threads go nowhere, I thought that was obvious.

Well how many times have we repeated the same things AoA? I limit questions to within the scope of a thread (ie, I don't care if you said something in another thread months ago) so no person who reads a thread has to go searching back four months or so for an answer (that's a pain).

The only way to not repeat things over and over again would be to have a single thread just dedicated to the subject. Then maybe we could get somewhere. Then again, I doubt anyone will change opinions. I don't see that as a purpose, however. I see usefulness as clarifying one's own positions.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

They go nowhere for *you*, because you're unwilling to do the legwork involved in learning. You've always got to have the last word, no matter what. By saying you limit questions to the scope of the thread is intellectual dishonesty, as these questions can only be answered by reference to outside sources. Simply put, these questions demand research and time. Wether a discussion "goes somewhere" is dependent on its participants.

[Andarcel]

One more time - The brain/mind is like a computer
Its got input (senses), output (actions), a CPU (brain), and memory (brain), and an OS (the mind/consciousness/whatever)

I'm not trying to draw any revolutionary theories here. The main difference I see between a computer and a human's mind/brian in function is the ability to actually learn things, which the mind does.

I don't think you can perfectly understand how the mind works, due to it being a completely abstract concept. The universe can be examined, wheras you can't really examine the mind.
One more time: people aren't like computers, because they can feel things. It's really, really simple, yet you just can't handle it, apparently. Oh, and by my lights a computer can learn. It accumulates data and adopts new programs. If you have some other notion of learning, do what I asked you to do earlier and define it.

The reason these threads aren't going anywhere is because you refuse to be precise in your language or deal with what people are posting. I just pointed out that people aren't like computers for the reasons I said, and you just ignored it. Twice.

[Sage the Mage]

One more time: people aren't like computers, because they can feel things. It's really, really simple, yet you just can't handle it, apparently. The brain functions like a computer in a broad sense, I'm not speaking in a literal sense. Feeling things has impact on working like a computer, unless I said EXACTLY like a computer, unless you can show me otherwise of course.

Oh, and by my lights a computer can learn. It accumulates data and adopts new programs. If you have some other notion of learning, do what I asked you to do earlier and define it. learning - The act, process, or experience of gaining knowledge or skill.

A computer doesn't currently have the capacity to learn in the same way human does. A computer can't learn anything beyond what a human teaches it (I'd consider giving a computer a new program as teaching it how to do something), wheras a human can learn new things on his/her own. I should have said, a computer that learns on its own to be more distinct.

The reason these threads aren't going anywhere is because you refuse to be precise in your language or deal with what people are posting. I just pointed out that people aren't like computers for the reasons I said, and you just ignored it. Twice. I think your questions came from being unclear as to what I ment when I said the first statement, so no I was not ignoring your questions just trying to make it so those question wouldn't exist in the first place.

Anyway...just so you won't yell at me again :)
Do you believe humans are sentient? Yup.

Because if computers aren't, and you view human minds as learning computers, then it logically follows that humans are basically machines as well, incapable of feeling. Sentience and working like a computer aren't mutually exclusive (feel free to prove otherwise), so I don't see how your statement follows.

[Daedric]

Ignorance is bliss...that is, until you or someone else get injured or negatively affected by it. Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand...