romansh

Thomas

As for freedom, are our choices, predetermined or merely determined by circumstances?

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?

Regardless, I was saying that , for example, imagination comes from or is born in the brain, the physical, chemistry - but in 'itself' seems to be something more/other: writ large in the physical but not physical.

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?

What Is Dark Energy?

It is a hypothesis that keeps the Standard Model intact.

Are there models that do not have dark energy and dark matter?

Soma

The myth of free will empowers us because we investigate the causes of our behavior, instead of saying that the supernatural caused our actions.

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.

Understanding why we behave increases our ability to control ourselves as we seek peace in our life and society . It creates a situation where we are not exempt from influences so we guard our selves against manipulation and become free from outside control.

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.

Rudolf Steiner explores the nature of human freedom by agreeing with the statement, "that an action, of which the agent does not know why he performs it, cannot be free," but when a person becomes conscious of the motives for acting, for example Buddha then freedom is obtained, enlightenment. He says through introspection we become come conscious of our motivations through observation; therefore' we have the possibility of freedom.

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.

Steiner explains by observing nature's manifestations within our subjective nature we can see the unity in duality and become free because we renounce the autonomy of free will as B.F. Skinner said. Science is showing us to ourselves, but is up to us to become aware of the natural enlightenment and freedom from free will as we are propelled towards freedom beyond our group thinking to become free to meet the world directly beyond religion, family, country and other limits to experience the freedom of our potential as unique individuals.

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.

Is Soma saying freedom is irrelevant? Thought he said it was immaterial.

 

As for immaterial freedom, I took it to mean immaterial as are love and imagination.

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.

Freedom is immaterial, but I think understanding the material restraints can help us with the immaterial.

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.

My problem Thomas with things like imagination and love, we as human beings are pretty much oblivious to the "chemistry" that makes these things perceptible.

I must admit I find the immaterial ^TM an unnecessary concept which in of itself explains nada.

When we conjure up the immaterial we swap one I don't know for another.

Personally I would phrase the question differently Paul

But for those interested I would suggest Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature

To be open, I have not read the book, but Pinker starts to cover the material in an earlier book The Blank Slate.

The evidence points to violence on a per capita basis decreasing on a world wide basis. If this is what we mean by better?

Thomas

Is there a thought or a bit of imagination that you have had in the absence of "chemistry"?

Let me rephrase

an authority is someone or a collection of someones, usually in a book, who can explain a difficult concept simply in a way that makes sense and can be reconciled with the universe.

The Bible I am afraid is not an authority.

One cannot know what they cannot observe

This I think is a totally accurate statement Burl. The second part is also true.

But as to you first phrase ... if it cannot be observed it may as well not exist.

Bill ... here is my take on reality, just ignoring the religious aspects for the moment.

• We are made up of stardust ,,, this appears to be almost an unassailable fact (well the hydrogen mostly appears to a product of a big bang like event)
• For most of our theories of "life" we don't have to assume supernatural causes.
• We don't know how life started (have a theory that is verifiable), But we have some interesting ideas.
• Evolution is as close to a verified fact as we can get, having said that we are continuing to learn and modify the theory, but at its core it's solid.
• Being stardust we, as individuals, bring in other stardust in the shape of meat, potatoes and veggies ... some gravy does not go amiss and a nice shiraz is a must.
• We shed energy giving and growth giving materials through the chemical processes we call life. Our daily visit to the bathroom is a testament to what is going on.

There is little to debate here ... a few unknowns but nothing serious ... being agnostic by nature I seem to cope with uncertainty.

We seem to be similar to other life forms on this planet, we can see where we fit in, in the great evolutionary unfolding. We share the basic building blocks with all life.

Here it gets a bit tricky:

• We have amazing capabilities in some ways compared to other life forms ... we can have complex plans, we can articulate them, and we can review and choose from several options.
• But as far as we can tell all this is in the confines of the chemistry we by and large understand. Having said that the options for the complexity are almost beyond imagination.
• This chemistry is the stuff or our thought and experience.
• The interesting thing is, in our daily lives we are totally oblivious to the underlying immensely complex chemistry that goes into a thought or an experience.
• We feel we somehow make these decisions/choices and are intrinsically responsible for them, again oblivious of the underlying processes that go into them. Similarly we hold others responsible for their chemistry. That is morally responsible.
• We think of ourselves unwittingly as first causes or as little gods, simply because we are unaware of the reality that props our choices.

When I discuss this with others they live and argue very simply from the easily available chemistry we call awareness or consciousness.

Your wife is right, you are not god, you are not a first cause generator, you don't get something for nothing when you make decisions etc. This is fair enough. But then I think this is more of a reflection of modern Christian thinking. I don't think this is pantheism. Pantheism is more of a realization that you are one with the universe that it took a whole universe to shape you and in turn you are shaping that universe.

Panentheism I have not got my head around. For me it is sticking in an unnecessary "en" simply on faith despite the complete lack of evidence for this god in things. It is, I think, the last duality.

There is no shame in being one with god. It is where the word atonement comes from. It is not about having sins forgiven ... it is about being at one.

Sorry that was a lot longer than I expected ...

Hi Joseph, Bill and Thomas

I get what you are saying here ... and agree to varying degrees with your various points.

I too would say we cannot truly know or be absolutely certain. Now I have sufficient certainty I some things that I bet my life on them. Like going through a traffic light on green. Having said that there are places I would not take that bet so casually ... like Tehran.

We don't live in a Newtonian universe, but it is such a good approximation for most things that we generally take it for granted. Our GPSs are a living demonstration of the falsification of a Newtonian world. But in my everyday life I can successfully use Newtonian simplifications even though I have enough evidence to demonstrate they are fundamentally false.

The universe is not an illusion, I definitely agree. But our perception of it is appears to be illusory. As I type, I have my red kitchen chair in front of me as a reminder. Anyone with a smattering of physics will understand that to think of the chair actually being "red" is likely nonsense. Another classical example look at the yellow smileys .... .... there is no yellow there ... it is all in our minds.

Having said all this ... by and large for most things where action is required I am forced take sides. Comedown on theism or non theism?

Also I think we really should be skeptical of our experience ... I would recommend Leonard Mlodinow's book ... "Subliminal". Our experience is only so powerful in that for the most part we are so unaware of the workings of our mind.

For me a lot of the debate and how we discuss Progressive Christianity (and its relatives) to me seems to be missing something.

As a self described agnostic, I find I sometimes go hopelessly to solipsistic thought processes to maintain that agnosticism. Just recently Burl implied I should maintain an open mind on the supernatural. And I responded do I have sit on the fulcrum of this particular teeter-totter. The issue I think is not whether I am conflicted about the supernatural, but the fact that end of the day I and others will come down on one side or the other.

Do I believe in telekinesis, clairvoyance, ghosts, the afterlife and supernatural stuff in general? The answer here is no. The reasons (why)? Realistically I suspect it is my indoctrination. The people I have lived my life with have not been believers in these things and I suppose I have not experienced events that would have convinced me otherwise. Plus my training has given me a great respect for thermodynamics. But notice I did not say I disbelieve.

We don't get something for nothing

Here is how I approach life in general ... what can we determine from existence by observation. For me the scientific method is a helpful predictor of determining outcomes. I find the model I develop for myself overlaps at least with certain interpretations of various religious texts. .. While interesting I can't help thinking so what?

While some interpretation of ancient texts might give us some insights into our existence today, there is a huge amount of modern day texts that do so as well. And here I don't mean modern religious interpretations.

An authority for me?

Some one who can explain aspects of existence in a way that make sense without a lot hand waving with respect to the supernatural. Especially at times a simple I or we don't know is the most accurate statement.

Some examples:

Charles Darwin

Susan Blackmore

Joseph Campbell

Stephen Hawking/Leonard Mlodinow

Bruce Hood

Douglas Adams

That does not mean I agree with every word they have said/written but I have to think carefully where I might disagree

rom

So Christians with this viewpoint think Christ's words are somehow inapplicable to humanity ... ie far from being inclusive?

And here I mean John 10:30. This implies to me this Christian viewpoint cannot believe Christ was truly a man.

In that case, natural causes were excluded and the event was considered consistent with previously described supernatural events.

Burl

The problem here is, if an event is analysable through cause and effect then it is truly part of the natural world. If we can't find the causal trail then fair enough. But I don't think the default position should be it is supernatural.

In your own words, it should not be confused with

 

failure to find evidence as evidence of nonexistence

We could end up on wild goose chases etc. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Thormas, I, likewise, am not a pantheist in that my wife assures me that I am not God.

Your wife does not believe (likely when later scribes suggest) Jesus said I and my father are one?

Or that it is only true for select individuals?

We are reborn or resurrected when come to understand this is true for all of us. At least in my opinion.

ps ... my wife is a goddess -

Blackmore started off with an illogical bias, then confused her failure to find evidence as evidence of nonexistence. Her wild goose chase failed, but wild geese exist.

She started off with an experience ... studied the phenomena for twenty years and became skeptical of her beliefs. I can't help but think of this as logical.

I find your assertion, just that an assertion.

While I take your point on black swans not existing and I will excuse those living on the same continent as the Black Swan River, but if you were to claim that we should keep an open mind regarding black swans being indigenous to the Columbia River, I would have to go to a deeply solipsistic frame of mind to agree with you here

I was taught in the eighth grade that one cannot prove a null hypothesis. Maybe she missed that day.

Again, here I think you mistake logic and science. I find I have to keep reminding people science does not deal in proof. And just because science does not provide proof does not mean we have to sit on some fulcrum of a teeter-totter (see-saw) of our beliefs. While we might wish to believe in the possibility some luminiferous aether, the Michelson Morley experiment (and subsequent physics) has put paid to that belief.

I think anyone who is not a consummate egoist must be open to the possibility of a supernatural realm. Not believe or disbelieve, but simply leave a little mental compartment for evidence which cannot be analyzed.

If I were to write:

I think anyone who is not a consummate egoist must be open minded to the possibility that they are completely a product of the universe unfolding.

This sentence would go down about as well as yours.

There is evidence that the universe is "unfolding", but the supernatural seems to be events that we have not had the ability or chance to explain.

Yet.Paridolia is an well recognized human trait. It has been studied and found in infants, so we understand why people see faces in wood grain, tortillas and dog butts. We have a good grasp on this natural phenomenon.

Yes ... completely natural. Not just faces or just vision.

Medjugorje is a special case. Lots of studies were conducted because millions of people simultaneously experienced what they considered miracles for several years. Something definitely happened there, and it is not completely explainable by natural means. Lots of evidence.

And here you confuse we don't have an explanation with supernaturalism. I would argue supernaturalism is an abandonment of an explanation.

I don't know how it was done, therefore supernatural, is not a logical proposition. A God of the gaps argument.

How can one expect another to change their belief simply based on the subjective experience of another especially on such matters as this one?

 

Joseph

Joseph

I will refer to again to Susan Blackmore ... she was a devout believer in the paranormal, after a personal experience; but after studying the pseudo-science and believing it (for twenty years if I remember correctly) she became a skeptic ... the evidence was just not there, at least for her.

We can change our beliefs with critical study apparently ... the wrong way in Susan's case it would seem.

Note the difference between we don't know how to explain and inexplicable or unexplainable.

.

No, I am not there yet. Far from it. But the journey itself is home.

Am I there yet? I don't know.

Though I find I am here ... it is where the universe has unfolded.

First we wanted to be fish. Then we wanted to be human. Now we want to understand why we aren't comfortable anywhere at all!

 

Steve

Just remember Steve, we don't really choose our wants.

And speaking personally ... I am comfortable, though I have some, though incomplete, understanding of other people's discomfort.

Evolution of course involves change ... no problem here. It seems humans evolved from fish; but to still call ourselves evolving fish, while I think accurate I suppose, does seem a touch incongruous to me.

 

Well, we can start with emotions. They are not material. But they are real. Thoughts and consciousness are not material, but they are real. Dreams are not material, but they are real. None of these things violate the laws of nature (as we understand them).

 

But what about claims of telekinesis? What about claims of clairvoyance? What about claims of the pseudo-sciences (astrology, tarot card reading, mediums). None of these claims are material. But is there any evidence to support the notion that they are real? Are they in accord with the laws of nature (as we understand them)?

Our emotions are writ large in our biochemistry, as are our thoughts or at least the experience thereof.

Despite the nonsense we come across, I am not aware of any reputable report of telekinesis, or clairvoyance and never mind the other pseudo-sciences you mentioned. Either way they are all written in the physical at least as far as I can tell. I linked to Susan Blackmore, she believed passionately in this nonsense. She even did a PhD on the subject but after twenty years of study and promoting the subject she realized there is no real evidence for these pseudo-sciences.