romansh

This I find a fairly typical response amongst those that have not thought deeply about science. Frankly this includes a good number of scientists. Science is ultimately a description and as we see more our view changes. It changes over decades centuries and even millennia. It does not deal in answers per se. We use its method to sort the wheat from the chaff at least in terms of descriptions. Unlike some modern forms of faith. Our understanding of our place in the cosmos is continually being refined. Soma (re:The method I use is if the passage rings a bell, sometimes I will reread a passage seeing the bell, but not hearing it and it will ring, but many times there is nothing there.) While I am as intuitive as the next person regarding my beliefs; I do have this perception, however false, that some corroborative evidence does not go amiss.

Having answers? A plug for agnosticism. Do I have any answers? As being agnostically inclined I might answer in this way: Do I think I know? I don't think so. Do I know? No. Do I think anyone else knows? No not really. Does anyone else know? I have no way of telling. I could and sometimes go on here. But I think we get my drift here. So do any religious texts have the answers? Well some claim they do. But the question for me is not whether the texts and the interpretations have answers, they plainly do. It is the veracity of these answers and interpretations that are of interest to me. And also the method of sorting them out. How do we sort out the accuracy (I have given up on the veracity) of these supposed answers? I think all of us use the scientific method (if not science itself) to some degree. What varies is how rigorously we apply the method.

For me ... Christmas [and religion] is like training wheels on a kiddie's bicycle. I have managed to let go of religion ... but I am rather attached to the paraphernalia associated with Christmas. It helps me be aware with the connection with my fellow beings and the unfolding universe in general.

So where does a person end and the rest of the universe begin?

Joseph ... the issue is not fairness. The rules are clear they might not be equitable but they are the same for everyone ... assuming they can rustle up enough enthusiasm amongst the population. In a workplace, at least a workplace I would want to work in, the management would not put up with belligerence and lies ... a bully in fact. In the US, the management, ostensibly the voters, are willing to put up with Trump's behaviour. The current Trump protests, at least the way they have gone down, while understandable will ultimately be counterproductive. My "beef" is with the management (or at least a large portion of it) that endorsed Trump's behaviour.

What's the difference between the universe and Being?

I must admit I am having trouble understanding this thomas. What exactly do you mean by Being? From my point of view we have existence; there is no separation in that existence. The I in I am is an illusion. And there is no need for an upper case letter at the beginning of existence or the present participle of to be.

I am OK with Trump too. Only because I have no free choice. But I know this, if I worked in a place that 50% of the workers condoned Trump's behaviour, lies and belligerence I would not work at that place. Because I do have a choice, it might not be free but it is a choice. And in the USA ... the voters are the bosses and they just condoned that behaviour.

If we believe in free will, morality, a need for forgiveness then we don't quite have the hang of dependent origination. And your comment it is about me ... belies this dependent origination.

While your speed is not completely independent of the stars, it is more of a function of the car, road, your attention, where you are going and how important the destination appears to you. Of course there are a whole of others that also can be 'large" proximate causes. And yet Christians (and to a lesser extent Buddhists) believe in free will. While Christianity may acknowledge dependent origination Christians in my experience by and large don't.

When I say chemistries ... it is more of a personal term. Which refers to things like, quantum chemistry, biochemistry, thermochemistry, electrochemistry ... no doubt I could include a few others. Next time you are going too fast ... go easy on yourself and the cop giving you the ticket. I can only refer you to the Buddhist's concepts of not self and dependent origination every time you think I AM. Before the Big Bang? I am not sure how some uncertainty that long time ago is going help explain how you could make decisions other than those you did make? Function at a higher level? Oh dear? More complexity perhaps.

This I think is a valid criticism. But then as a society we may have brought this upon ourselves. In that we (private and public sectors) expect value for money from academia. And we insist on quantity more so than quality. Being a product of scientific academia I can't help thinking my education was good value for money; sadly not for the taxpayers that stood the bill. Nevertheless, there are a whole bunch of beliefs that do not pass scrutiny when we hold them up to the light of evidence. And such it would be wise to hold these nonsensical beliefs in abeyance until there is some evidence that corroborates the belief. And again, science is a process; it works not in years or decades but centuries. And even that will turn out to be a bit short I suspect. We can throw away many of our training wheels of belief/faith at least when we have a little understanding the physical world.

Quality versus quantity?

In volunteer organizations ...

Ok .., the concept of the unicorn is in the mind, or at least supposed mind. Are we agreed? Is this mind what you point to when you think of the non-physical? This is part of classical dualism as proposed by Rene Descartes and by others... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Cartesian_dualism Now this supposed mind must interact with physical brain ... are we agreed here? ie this non-physical mind must react to the physics of what the eyes see and then in turn guide the chemistry to simulate thinking in the chemistry of the brain and in turn send impulses to our muscles? Is this roughly the map you have of how the non-physical interacts the physical universe? How did we get here? When some ancient scribe likely said on Jesus's behalf, I and my Father are one ... is clearly a monistic sentence. And yet we point to a dualistic universe?

I thought you were implying it was something more than just the physical? Is immaterial equivalent to non-physical for you? If so how do we access this non-physical?

Rubber Bible ???

Thomas I have often stated I do not know the universe well enough to state whether our choices are predetermined or not. (I would bet against ... but this is immaterial ;-) ) But we can safely say, I think, that our choices are caused by the environment and the "chemistries" we find ourselves having. Also in my essay near the beginning of this thread ... I ask why on Earth would I want to make a choice that was somehow independent of the universe?

I would strongly argue against imagination comes from the brain ... at least just from the brain. Billions of years of evolution have shaped the human brain and its capability to imagine. Every scrap of "chemistry" that forms our brains has come from elsewhere. Every bit of information that has been recorded in our brain chemistry has come from the environment. Our chemistry manipulates these recorded experiences and recombines them in potentially novel forms. We describe these as imaginings ... but they are just the universe unfolding. So if they are not physical can you point out a non-physical imagining?

It is a hypothesis that keeps the Standard Model intact. Are there models that do not have dark energy and dark matter?

Soma This myth has done exactly the opposite from what I can see. Have you never heard the phrase "God given free will"? It is in large part, in my opinion, the source of the buck stopping duality we experience today. Free will has been described as the Last Great Lie by an atheistically minded author. Even today many if not most atheists hang on to our belief in free will. I can't help it is a left over from our religious beliefs that derived from the Levant. Usually it is in the shape of compatibilism in some shape, form or another. I agree with the understanding bit ... but the bit about free from outside control is plainly wrong. In my mind this is dualism on steroids. The "outside" shaped me, I shape the outside. I and my "outside" are one. I can't help but think of Steiner as wrong here. Unless he is saying something like understanding that "chemistry" shapes what I experience as contemplative choices ... then I would agree it brings a certain degree of understanding to the table. In a world without free will it is tough to see this duality. And as to Skinner's quote ... surely you can see the inconsistency there. How can it be up to us to become aware of the natural enlightenment. While I understand the supposed benefits he cites, that first step is in the hands of "my outside".

I sometimes play a game and think about knowing. ignoring solipsistic arguments like is everything a creation of my mind, am I result of a brain in a vat or is the universe a simulation? What is the capital of Poland? Warsaw? Or is it Warszawa? Is the simply a definitional game, am I claiming to know a definition or just agreeing with a definition? Can I consider Krakow (Kraków) in some way to be the capital? What exactly is Warsaw? It is continually changing. The Vistula River continually flows through it. Does the water suddenly cease to be Warsaw as it leaves the boundary? Does Warsaw change as the boundaries of Poland wax and wane over the generations. What about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? I really do need to get a life.

Thomas I am just clarifying which of the two broad meanings material and immaterial Soma is using. I suspect, as you do, that Soma is using immaterial in the sense without physical substance. I find ultimately the asserted concept of freedom to be a nonsense, at least in the philosophical sense of the word freedom. You claim (assert) that love and imagination are immaterial. For you it would appear 'concepts' like love (hate) and imagination (ignorance) to be without form. For me they are writ large in the physical ... chemistry etc.

If you are saying that freedom is irrelevant I would agree. If you are saying immaterial freedom exists, this I find to be plainly nonsense. This is not true at the quantum or the Newtonian levels.