The free will fallacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2017, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2017 07:27 PM by nosferatu323.)
RE: The free will fallacy
(31-07-2017 03:02 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Is that a good-enough definition for you?
I don't think so. Definitions are definitions, either it makes it definite or not, and yours doesn't make it definite. It doesn't give us any measure to see whether the universe or anything else, possesses this thing or not.

Quote:Okay, now you define "God."
Well, in pantheism, God is the universe and the universe is God. I think you already know this.

I'm not defending the pantheist position, in fact I think there is nothing in it to defend. As Robvalue correctly pointed out, it's nothing but some tautologies. I just find it a good approach to see seemingly inconsistent religious concepts in a consistent way. Like the issue of God's will and Human's free will. I don't think there is anything to "prove" about pantheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2017, 06:51 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2017 07:18 PM by nosferatu323.)
RE: The free will fallacy
(31-07-2017 02:07 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  Pantheism seems to me to be pointless tautologies
This is very true, "pointless" is subjective though. All mathematical propositions are also tautologies, but they resolve many issues. I think the pantheistic view can resolve many religious confusions and inconsistencies.

Quote:How can salvation apply?
In this view, there are auspicious and inauspicious states of being. The existence of auspicious and inauspicious states of being is pretty self evident considering the human experience. Abiding in the auspicious state is what is referred to as salvation.

Quote:What are we being saved from, ourselves?
In this view, we are being saved from falling into the depths of the inauspicious state. This would be damnation.

Disclaimer: Pantheism is a pretty broad concept, I'm just using a notion that I find to be the most consistent here. I'm not claiming all notions of pantheism are compatible with my descriptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2017, 09:01 PM
RE: The free will fallacy
(31-07-2017 06:38 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  Well, in pantheism, God is the universe and the universe is God. I think you already know this.

No, I'm afraid I don't know that. In pantheism, God may encompass the universe, but it must also have the additional attribute of an over-arching consciousness as I mentioned.

Otherwise, a pantheistic God is not a God at all. It's just the materialistic universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 02:25 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2017 04:19 AM by nosferatu323.)
RE: The free will fallacy
(31-07-2017 09:01 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(31-07-2017 06:38 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  Well, in pantheism, God is the universe and the universe is God. I think you already know this.

No, I'm afraid I don't know that. In pantheism, God may encompass the universe, but it must also have the additional attribute of an over-arching consciousness as I mentioned.

Otherwise, a pantheistic God is not a God at all. It's just the materialistic universe.

The thing is the universe is pretty unknown. Our current knowledge about the universe might be infinitesimal. In fact I think the universe is not less strange than any other religious concept. Discoveries like dark matter dark energy and the possibility of other universes suggest this.

I wouldn't call that materialistic, I think materialism is ill-defined in general. For example, dark matter cannot be properly defined as matter, but it is very likely that is part of the reality and most likely our sensory perception is inadequate to investigate it. The pantheistic view strongly holds that there is no duality in reality. There is no natural / supernatural duality in this perspective. If that's what you mean.

I think your emphasis on an over-arching consciousness is unscientific. It is not clear what you mean by this term, therefore I don't think what you say means anything from a scientific perspective. What is an over-arching consciousness!? Really. Do you really expect a scientific demonstration about something that is not even defined in science?

There are many ways to figure out a bit about some woo-woo aspects of consciousness, there are already scientists who are triggering different sorts of OBE in their patients. You can use psychedelic machines or drugs to personally experience different states of consciousness, there are already countless reports about "oneness with the universe", "complete detachment from the body", etc. from the psychedelic users. Some reports of brain dead patients having valid information about the time they were brain dead also leaves some room for speculations. But as I said, I think as long as consciousness cannot be defined nothing can be scientifically demonstrated, but of course you can try doing meditation or using psychedelic drugs and machines to personally investigate it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 04:47 AM
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 02:25 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  I think your emphasis on an over-arching consciousness is unscientific. It is not clear what you mean by this term, therefore I don't think what you say means anything from a scientific perspective. What is an over-arching consciousness!? Really. Do you really expect a scientific demonstration about something that is not even defined in science?

I don't believe in pantheism. I was just stating its definition as I understand it. I am an atheist regarding all god-concepts.

Pantheism may reconcile the ideas of free will and an all-powerful God, but it fails on different grounds, which I think I made clear.

It's time to return to the original discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 05:42 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2017 05:46 AM by nosferatu323.)
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 04:47 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Pantheism may reconcile the ideas of free will and an all-powerful God, but it fails on different grounds, which I think I made clear.
I tried to explain that your objection to pantheism is based on an indefinite notion of consciousness and why I think it cannot be an objection. Once consciousness is understood, we might understand that some notion of consciousness is possible with substrates other than the brain for example, but it is too soon to assume that's impossible, I think.

But I agree, I don't think we can make more sense out of this discussion right now, thanks for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts on this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nosferatu323's post
01-08-2017, 07:10 AM
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 05:42 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  Once consciousness is understood, we might understand that some notion of consciousness is possible with substrates other than the brain for example, but it is too soon to assume that's impossible, I think.

That itself may be a topic relevant to free will.

If you agree with the premise that consciousness is evolved to serve the biological interests of organic creatures, who must search out very specific inputs and interactions necessary for their survival and propagation, then by what other means could consciousness evolve? Rocks don't have interests to pursue, for instance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 09:58 AM
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 07:10 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  If you agree with the premise that consciousness is evolved to serve the biological interests of organic creatures, who must search out very specific inputs and interactions necessary for their survival and propagation, then by what other means could consciousness evolve? Rocks don't have interests to pursue, for instance.

Consciousness seems to be the most mysterious thing we have ever come across in our scientific inquiries, here is a comment from Edward Witten, a very prominent string physicist:

Quote:I think consciousness will remain a mystery. Yes, that's what I tend to believe. I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent. Biologists and perhaps physicists will understand much better how the brain works. But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious. I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness...

But let's talk about some speculations since you brought this up, Freeman Dyson is quoted to say:

Quote:"It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons."

If we assume consciousness is in fact a fundamental property of elementary particles, as Dyson suggests, we can assume that consciousness evolved only in complexity, the phenomenon itself is not emergent. Consciousness is not produced by evolution, it has evolved along with the path of evolution.

Speaking of freewill, if we assume freewill is a property of consciousness, it also makes sense. The particles really seem to make conscious choices in Double Slit experiment for example. Check this out, there are already some scientific works that somehow support the idea that consciousness is something very fundamental to reality. But since consciousness itself is not defined in the scientific community, I don't think a serious work will come out of it, or as Witten suggests it may never come out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 09:59 AM
RE: The free will fallacy
...repost...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2017, 11:03 AM
RE: The free will fallacy
(01-08-2017 09:58 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  Consciousness seems to be the most mysterious thing we have ever come across in our scientific inquiries, here is a comment from Edward Witten, a very prominent string physicist:

Quote:I think consciousness will remain a mystery. Yes, that's what I tend to believe. I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent. Biologists and perhaps physicists will understand much better how the brain works. But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious. I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness...

I am most definitely not a mysterian. I don't even know how to begin to address such unusual speculations, except to say they seem to me entirely unwarranted by the state of present science, even of quantum mechanics.

So the bottom line is that you do not agree with my premise. Okay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: