Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

If Free Will exists, then Mind underlies the physical universe.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jude View Post
    Free will exist in a large part in what we allow ourselves to be exposed to via our senses. What we hear, see, feel. What influences us. This in turn will develop our beliefs. Once our beliefs are entrenched we are on a determined course based on them. But we have the free will to change beliefs when exposed to new input and can change course. This, to me is the message of the Bible. What we believe is deterministic.
    I think you have hit on something very fundamental about our lives in this universe. It is like we are put here and given the chance for our choices to show. Everyone sets up a bubble of information around them. But at first they see all sorts of 'bubbles' other people invite us to, but when we find ourselves attracted to this set of beliefs, we then tend not to look as much at those other bubbles, and more and more we sink into the gravity well of our CHOSEN world view. People who love pornography didn't start that way, they chose that way. Same for many world views.

    I would agree with you that the qualia makes the choice so that is free will first, outcome second. As Augustine said, Faith comes before Knowledge. This is part of what he meant.

    I wouldn't describe what we believe as deterministic but the logical consequences of what we believe are deterministic. And yes, we can change, but with great effort and dispair about our former beliefs.

    I think the message of the Bible is that we are responsible for our choices, but all choices lead to sin and thus to dead ends, in this world and only Christ can extricate us. The atheist and secularists who don't believe this must get rid of god from their bubble, like a group of republicans will be repellant to an odd democrat who walks in (and vice versa).

    A case in point that agrees with your idea of choice, before the big bang physicists were adamantly opposed to believing things that had no observational evidence. But when the big bang happened, and people started flocking to the first church of Christ of the Big Bang (as one astronomer put it), then many in physics started looking for ways that there not be a beginning and thus no being to start the process. Do a google ngram on 'many worlds'. That term takes off about the time the big bang is proven. Why? The scientific community was making their choice. Today in spite of not a single observational evidence of the multiverse, physicists believe if they can write an 11 variable equation, it must have existence and reality. That is String Theory. But just because we can write such an equation and match some of it to reality doesn't mean the rest is real. To beleive that is nothing more than a revival of the Pythagorean religion in which math is the God. The formerly pooh-poohed multiverse was now accepted for the simple reason, it avoided having a bothersome God hanging around to tell us how to behave.

    Comment


    • #17
      This is not a global warming topic

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by grmorton View Post
        This is not a global warming topic
        Understood. No intention of making it one. I was just being a little snarky, welcome back!
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-10-2016, 06:57 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          It sounds like you're using two categories when there's really three (using your framework): 1) Made of mind and aware, 2) Made of mind and dormant, and 3) Made of mind but has no mind (neither dormant nor aware).
          I might have miscommunicated here, but mind can only be aware or dormant in this framework. The first two are the only options.
          -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
          Sir James Jeans

          -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
          Sir Isaac Newton

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by grmorton View Post

            Now to another point raised by shunya. My qualia thinks it is ridiculous (see I am still snarky) to call the underlying mind, the mind of god. There is no evidence for this. We have experienced nothing indicating that to be the case. My qualia no more experiences God's qualia than I experience Shunya's qualia. My qualia applies only to me. One can believe all sorts of things (including 6 impossible things before breakfast), but one shouldn't assert faith statements as evidence. My body may be a machine which allows my qualia to experience the natural world, but that doesn't mean that the qualia arises from the machine.
            I didn't really intended to argue for God here, just that mind underlies the universe (and it's not necessarily one mind either).
            -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
            Sir James Jeans

            -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
            Sir Isaac Newton

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
              First question. The universe is generated by a mind (using mind). So, in a sense, yes. Free will is the property of fundamental mind. I never said that there was only one mind. The distinction I am making is that there is conscious mind (mind that is aware) and dormant mind (mind that is not aware). As I said, mind is that which has the ability to be aware, not necessarily that which is always aware.
              So, if the universe and you are just a dream going on in the mind of another then in what sense do you, i.e. the dream, have free will. Or am I misunderstanding you when you say "in a sense, yes, that you are just a dream?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                Dualism is false due to interaction problems. Hence, P2 is true.
                Interaction "problems" do not add up to substance dualism being false.
                http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  The 'mind exists' in P1 represents an assumption that God exists, and makes your argument intensely circular to C : Mind underlies the physical universe.

                  How would you define this mind other than God?
                  Kantian misdiagnosis of circularity again ...

                  "mind exists" in P1 would refer to any mind, the proof of which is banal, since introspection is sufficient proof of that
                  and then "mind underlies the physical universe" would be a non-circular conclusion, which would be one way (though in this shape not the most correct one) to prove the existence of God.
                  http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                  Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                    Kantian misdiagnosis of circularity again ...

                    "mind exists" in P1 would refer to any mind, the proof of which is banal, since introspection is sufficient proof of that
                    Too obvious to be unbelievable.

                    and then "mind underlies the physical universe" would be a non-circular conclusion, which would be one way (though in this shape not the most correct one) to prove the existence of God.
                    The presupposition P2 does not logically follow P1. P2 simply presupposes the existence of God. An assertion as presupposition to the argument makes it a circular argument.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-19-2016, 11:49 AM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Too obvious to be unbelievable.
                      Thanks for admitting P1.

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The presupposition P2 does not logically follow P1. P2 simply presupposes the existence of God. An assertion as presupposition to the argument makes it a circular argument.
                      Neither P2 nor P3 presuppose the existence of God as proof.

                      P2 is in fact shared by all materialists. It is also false.

                      P3, mind does not reduce to matter, is obvious if we admit introspective proof about what mind is.

                      And while P3 may be "untenable unless there is a God" - namely as explanation for it - it is certainly not "only argued from previously accepted existence of God", as the circulus vitiosus would require, which you are trying to foist on it.
                      http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                      Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                        Thanks for admitting P1.
                        P1 is obvious and not meaningful.

                        Neither P2 nor P3 presuppose the existence of God as proof.
                        P2 is an assumption that God exists and not a proof.

                        P2 is in fact shared by all materialists. It is also false.
                        Not clear?!?!? How is P2 shared by materialists who do not believe God exists.

                        P3, mind does not reduce to matter, is obvious if we admit introspective proof about what mind is.
                        We have no objective evidence of this assumption. It assumes the negative that mind is not a product of the brain. The only objective evidence we have is the mind and consciousness is a product of the brain.

                        And while P3 may be "untenable unless there is a God" - namely as explanation for it - it is certainly not "only argued from previously accepted existence of God", as the circulus vitiosus would require, which you are trying to foist on it.
                        P@ is not previously accepted accept by those that believe God exists, which makes the argument 'begging the question.'
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          P1 is obvious and not meaningful.
                          P1 is at least obvious. Normally that should make it meaningful.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          P2 is an assumption that God exists and not a proof.
                          P2 is an assumption that mind and matter are same ultimate substance. This is false, both in the conclusion here that matter reduces to mind (Berkleyan idealism) and in your own version, that mind reduces to matter (non-P3, materialism).

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Not clear?!?!? How is P2 shared by materialists who do not believe God exists.
                          They think mind is an accidental expression of matter, just as OP here thinks matter is an accidental expression of mind.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          We have no objective evidence of this assumption. It assumes the negative that mind is not a product of the brain. The only objective evidence we have is the mind and consciousness is a product of the brain.
                          That mind is not reducible to matter is self evident. Its "assuming the negative that mind is not a product of the brain" is like my assuming the negative that all lengths are the same as yesterday, rather than all having shrunk to half.

                          That mind is reducible to the brain is not "objective evidence", it is a positive claim, as well as being a counterintuitive conclusion, which means that you have to provide positive proofs for it.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          P@ is not previously accepted accept by those that believe God exists, which makes the argument 'begging the question.'
                          False, P3 is previously accepted not only by those who have positive beliefs that God exists, but also by those who are undecided on the question, except when swayed by atheistic "scientists" on the matter.

                          It is YOUR pretence that mind DOES reduce to matter which needs support in order not to be circular. One support would be a previous proof of materialism being true - but you don't have any.

                          If you have any other, what about sharing it?
                          http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                          Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                            P1 is at least obvious. Normally that should make it meaningful.
                            No, the obvious normal that human minds exist is not meaningful to the argument.

                            P2 is an assumption that mind and matter are same ultimate substance. This is false, both in the conclusion here that matter reduces to mind (Berkleyan idealism) and in your own version, that mind reduces to matter (non-P3, materialism).
                            P2: Substance Dualism is false.

                            This an assertion without supporting evidence. The belief that mind reduces to matter is not necessarily materialism. Materialism would necessarily assume that there is no other explanation of our physical existence other than the physical nature of our existence itself.

                            [quote] They think mind is an accidental expression of matter, just as OP here thinks matter is an accidental expression of mind.

                            No, science does not propose that the nature of our physical existence is accidental. Check you definition in plain English of what is an 'accident.'

                            That mind is not reducible to matter is self evident.
                            Not self-evident at all. There is no evidence that this is the case.

                            That mind is reducible to the brain is not "objective evidence", it is a positive claim, as well as being a counter intuitive conclusion, which means that you have to provide positive proofs for it.
                            All the objective evidence we have at present demonstrates only a neurological connection between the brain and the mind. Can you present any objective verifiable evidence to the contrary?
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              So, if the universe and you are just a dream going on in the mind of another then in what sense do you, i.e. the dream, have free will. Or am I misunderstanding you when you say "in a sense, yes, that you are just a dream?
                              We're not a dream. We are mind, i.e. part of the fundamental substance. The sense is that the universe around us (i.e. walls , tables, doors etc), what we would commonly call physical is generated using mind (that which can have a conscious experience) as a substance. This is what is a 'dream', not our minds which are fundamental.
                              -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                              Sir James Jeans

                              -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                              Sir Isaac Newton

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                                We're not a dream. We are mind, i.e. part of the fundamental substance. The sense is that the universe around us (i.e. walls , tables, doors etc), what we would commonly call physical is generated using mind (that which can have a conscious experience) as a substance. This is what is a 'dream', not our minds which are fundamental.
                                This is a bit confusing. So the physical world is just a dream generated by a mind, but our own minds are what, fundemental, not generated, part of an all encompassing mind, god, or what?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X