Are We Here by Chance?

[Iacchus]

So, if we could postulate that we somehow got here by chance, what's the "chance" of the whole ball of wax, replete with every single last "ordered detail," to just up and disappear? Anytime soon? If it's by chance that we got here, why couldn't it all just disappear on a "whim" as well? Because chance doesn't work that way? ;) Or, does it?

Do you realize that the only way chance can exist is by total complexity? And where would this total complexity exist, if not through some abstract, omniscient, all-powerful state of essence or being?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, if we could postulate that we somehow got here by chance, what's the "chance" of the whole ball of wax, replete with every single last "ordered detail," to just up and disappear? Anytime soon? If it's by chance that we got here, why couldn't it all just disappear on a "whim" as well? Because chance doesn't work that way? ;) Or, does it?

Do you realize that the only way chance can exist is by total complexity? And where would this total complexity exist, if not through some abstract, omniscient, all-powerful state of essence or being?

My answers to your quiz:

- Yes.

- Can't say. What are the odds that you are exactly where you are? There are so many other places to be in this universe. That doesn't mean it's impossible to be where you are.
- Can't say either.
- Why indeed?
- Yes it does.
- It does.

- No, not yet. I guess I don't know enough about "total complexity"
- You tell me.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, if we could postulate that we somehow got here by chance, what's the "chance" of the whole ball of wax, replete with every single last "ordered detail," to just up and disappear? Anytime soon? If it's by chance that we got here, why couldn't it all just disappear on a "whim" as well? Because chance doesn't work that way? ;) Or, does it?

Do you realize that the only way chance can exist is by total complexity? And where would this total complexity exist, if not through some abstract, omniscient, all-powerful state of essence or being?


Some abstract thingy??? *raises eyebrow*

[Z]

So, if it's orderly and complex, Goddidit.

If it's chaotic and based on chance, Goddidit.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Let's face it, Iacchus - the problem here is, your mind doesn't handle the idea that something as complex as the Universe could come about without someone to guide the process, so you have to invent God to let your weak mind deal with it.

Well - whatever works for you, man. Just don't get offended when those with stronger minds reject your theories.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Complexity means design", this could be your premise, but according to zaayrdragon, the opposite takes you to the same conclusion... mmm

Could you describe your designer in a better way? are you talking about a being who has desires, will, knowledge, powers, etc?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Let's face it, Iacchus - the problem here is, your mind doesn't handle the idea that something as complex as the Universe could come about without someone to guide the process, so you have to invent God to let your weak mind deal with it. Nope, it doesn't even have to be someone, just an attributable principle or cause. Certainly I wouldn't put the idea of "somebody" doing it until I at least understood that. So in that sense you could say I'm attempting to keep with Occam's razor in order to keep things simple. ;) Why else would we need to complicate things then, except perhaps to provide for any ad hominem remarks? Does that somehow make you feel important?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Iacchus

Do you realize that the only way chance can exist is by total complexity? And where would this total complexity exist, if not through some abstract, omniscient, all-powerful state of essence or being?

But what would the being exist through? If the answer is along the lines of "nothing because this being is the ultimate cause" then why not equate chance with this "ultimate cause"?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, if we could postulate that we somehow got here by chance,

Except I didn't get here by chance. I got here by Honda Civic.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
But what would the being exist through? If the answer is along the lines of "nothing because this being is the ultimate cause" then why not equate chance with this "ultimate cause"?

Do you mean these? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moirai)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nope, it doesn't even have to be someone, just an attributable principle or cause. Certainly I wouldn't put the idea of "somebody" doing it until I at least understood that. So in that sense you could say I'm attempting to keep with Occam's razor in order to keep things simple. ;) Why else would we need to complicate things then, except perhaps to provide for ad hominem remarks? Does that somehow make you feel important?
What we have been able to tell about the universe suggests it has changed from maximum randomness (at the time of the big bang) to very complex, what with galaxies separating out, planets falling into orbit around stars, life appearing (in at least one place) etc.

To suggest that we reverse this trend to postulate a highly complex "creator" that preceded the time of maximum randomness is to slash your wrists with Occam's razor.

[El Greco]

Personally I'm here by pure chance. I was going to get off at the previous stop but I got carried away talking to that babe.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Do you mean these? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moirai)


Erm, no. Perhaps you misunderstood me. Iacchus is suggesting that "total complexity" (by which I assume is meant "pure chance") must exist through an ultimate being. The question then is what the ultimate being exists through. If the answer is "nothing because the being is the ultimate cause" then why cannot chance similarly be the ultimate cause.

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nope, it doesn't even have to be someone, just an attributable principle or cause.

How about, the laws of physics? Quantum mechanics? Certainly not something omniscient and all-powerful.

Certainly I wouldn't put the idea of "somebody" doing it until I at least understood that. So in that sense you could say I'm attempting to keep with Occam's razor in order to keep things simple. ;) Why else would we need to complicate things then, except perhaps to provide for any ad hominem remarks? Does that somehow make you feel important?

Not overly - and no ad hominem was intended. But you demonstrate, time and again, a need for all this complex universe to have design, order, and purpose. And you have demonstrated a mental weakness within that need. Don't think it's ad hominem, simply an observation. Incidentally, you and I share that same mental weakness. I just lack the need to make everyone else share my weakness.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Erm, no. Perhaps you misunderstood me. Iacchus is suggesting that "total complexity" (by which I assume is meant "pure chance") must exist through an ultimate being. The question then is what the ultimate being exists through. If the answer is "nothing because the being is the ultimate cause" then why cannot chance similarly be the ultimate cause.

Well, I was of course pullin' yer leg a bit there, mr. Smith.
You are however describing what sounds to me like some sort of deity of chance, or possibly a God that existed only as that coincidental event that gave rise to the universe, hence the Goddesses of fate.

It seemed mildly amusing at the time.:D

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Well, I was of course pullin' yer leg a bit there, mr. Smith.


I did suspect


You are however describing what sounds to me like some sort of deity of chance, or possibly a God that existed only as that coincidental event that gave rise to the universe, hence the Goddesses of fate.


I'm not arguing for any notion of a god. I just think that Iacchus' doesn't really have an argument against the notion that we are here by chance.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I'm not arguing for any notion of a god. I just think that Iacchus' doesn't really have an argument against the notion that we are here by chance.

I did suspect. ;)

Iacchus may not have an argument, but then again, he is only asking silly questions that he would like us to answer in a way that satisfies him. That's probably not going to happen.

Is there a point to this post?







No.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, if we could postulate that we somehow got here by chance, what's the "chance" of the whole ball of wax, replete with every single last "ordered detail," to just up and disappear?



What's the chance? A very remote one. Possibly incalculable..



Every 'single last ordered detail ', took billions of years to be put into place. There is no reason to believe it will disassemble in any less time..

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

But what would the being exist through? If the answer is along the lines of "nothing because this being is the ultimate cause" then why not equate chance with this "ultimate cause"? Perhaps I'm not making myself too clear here? I don't believe in chance. Basically what I'm saying is that what we mistake for chance, is merely an "illusion" which is derived from our inability to understand the full complexity of things. Meaning the more complexity that exists, the more likely it will seem things occur by chance. Yet obviously that isn't the case. What is the "chance" of anything happening without a whole diversity of "pre-existing" variables to choose from? And what other choice is to be made, except by the specific interaction which occurs between these pre-existing variables? In other words it's the complex relationship between cause-and-effect all the way. And so has nothing to do with this "mysterious" (hmm ...) non-complex order of things that we call "chance."

Hence "this being" would entail the total complexity of things, and thus become the very ground of existence for everything else.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

Erm, no. Perhaps you misunderstood me. Iacchus is suggesting that "total complexity" (by which I assume is meant "pure chance") must exist through an ultimate being. The question then is what the ultimate being exists through. If the answer is "nothing because the being is the ultimate cause" then why cannot chance similarly be the ultimate cause. No, this is incorrect. This is not what I'm describing. As I suggested above, the existence of chance which, is merely an "illusion," is wholly contingent upon the complexity of things ... or, the lack of understanding thereof.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

What we have been able to tell about the universe suggests it has changed from maximum randomness (at the time of the big bang) to very complex, what with galaxies separating out, planets falling into orbit around stars, life appearing (in at least one place) etc. So, the Universe formed itself of its own proclivity and totally out the blue? If that's the case, then what's the point in asking "how?"


To suggest that we reverse this trend to postulate a highly complex "creator" that preceded the time of maximum randomness is to slash your wrists with Occam's razor. Well, let's see here ...

0 + 0 = 0

0 - 0 = 0

0 x 0 = 0

0 divided by 0 = 0

Now, have I left anything out? ...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by El Greco

Personally I'm here by pure chance. I was going to get off at the previous stop but I got carried away talking to that babe. If it was by chance that you didn't off at the "previous stop," then what did "the babe" have to do with it?

[UserGoogol]

0/0 isn't zero.

But besides that, here is an amusing story which I am ripping off of Richard Feynman, with some tone inspiration from Douglas Adams.

A man is driving to work. As he drives, he sees that the car in front of him has the license plate QRH-2FM. He does some quick calculations and immediately determines that the probabilty of that exact combination of alphanumeric characters coming up is less than one in a million. He ponders upon the ramifications of this for a moent and then suddenly makes a u-turn and spends the day at the church of his choice.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, the Universe formed itself of its own proclivity and totally out the blue? If that's the case, then what's the point in asking "how?"
The point is in learning. You don't need a reason to learn. But you're not asking "how", you're asking "who". In fact, the word "proclivity" indicates that you are giving human characteristics to the universe. Perhaps you are incapable of visualizing things in anything other than your own narrow perception. Or perhaps you don't understand the words you use.


Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, let's see here ...

0 + 0 = 0

0 - 0 = 0

0 x 0 = 0

0 divided by 0 = 0

Now, have I left anything out? ...
Besides the fact that you don't understand math either? No, I think you've given us a good indication of where you're coming from.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, the Universe formed itself of its own proclivity and totally out the blue? If that's the case, then what's the point in asking "how?"

Solving this problem by bringing in a creator only passes the problem on to that creator--how did the creator come to be? I'm sure you have an answer to that, but whatever it is, be prepared also to answer why the universe (which we know exists) can't lack its own creator for the same reason.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If it's by chance that we got here, why couldn't it all just disappear on a "whim" as well? Because chance doesn't work that way? ;)


The physical world doesn't seem to work that way.


And where would this total complexity exist, if not through some abstract, omniscient, all-powerful state of essence or being?

Natural processes.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky

The point is in learning. You don't need a reason to learn. But you're not asking "how", you're asking "who". In fact, the word "proclivity" indicates that you are giving human characteristics to the universe. Perhaps you are incapable of visualizing things in anything other than your own narrow perception. Or perhaps you don't understand the words you use.No, there's no point whatsoever in asking if everything arrived here purely by chance. Now, if the Universe were but a subset of a greater reality, called God, that would account for any and all probabilities.

So, how do you cover all probabilities except through total complexity? If there is a probability of something occurring, how is that probability maintained? What is the likelihood of a human being appearing out of nowhere without a pre-existing DNA code? Why should the origin of the Universe be maintained any differently?


Besides the fact that you don't understand math either? No, I think you've given us a good indication of where you're coming from. 1 + 1 = 2.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by gnome

Solving this problem by bringing in a creator only passes the problem on to that creator--how did the creator come to be? I'm sure you have an answer to that, but whatever it is, be prepared also to answer why the universe (which we know exists) can't lack its own creator for the same reason. No, what we have to ask is how is it possible for things to order themselves out of the blue. Does this at all seem likely? Of course it doesn't. So obviously what we need to ask is what are the "preconditions" which must be present in order to give the "appearance" that things are ordered in that fashion. And if we understood that chance is merely an "illusion" derived from our inability to understand the full complexity of things, then we have our answer.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jzs

The physical world doesn't seem to work that way.

Natural processes. What are the laws of chance but the laws of randomness. Whereas if eveything (our origin) is based upon chance, what is the likelihood of "anything" working?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What are the laws of chance but the laws of randomness. Whereas if eveything (our origin) is based upon chance, what is the likelihood of "anything" working?


Yes, what is the likelyhood of anything working, such as "some abstract, omniscient, all-powerful state of essence or being?"

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

Yes, what is the likelyhood of anything working, such as "some abstract, omniscient, all-powerful state of essence or being?"

Let's begin with the "abstract" part first. Are you suggesting that that which is abstract does not bear fruit in the everyday reality of which we know? Yet obviously this is the very thing which acts behind our nature isn't it? So, we can at least assess this much with human beings. As for the rest of reality, it no doubt has its abstract aspects as well, don't you think? Except that as human beings we are conscious and aware that this abstract state exists. Is that to say this abstract state does not exist with anything else? Of course not. It only suggests that human beings are allowed to perceive it because our brains have evolved to allow us to do so.

So, if this abstract state of thought was pre-existent to the forming of the Universe, where could it have possibly originated?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, what we have to ask is how is it possible for things to order themselves out of the blue. Why do we have to ask that, since there is no indication that it has taken place?

Do you have an example of something that has " ordered itself out of the blue " ?

[Z]

Abstract: not representing or imitating external reality or the objects of nature; existing only in the mind; separated from embodiment.

Or, in other words, not directly related to reality.

So, no, there are no 'abstract states' preceding or underlying real things.

Forget those old, dead Greeks.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Abstract: not representing or imitating external reality or the objects of nature; existing only in the mind; separated from embodiment.

Or, in other words, not directly related to reality.

So, no, there are no 'abstract states' preceding or underlying real things.

Forget those old, dead Greeks. I thought the " existing only in the mind " part, summed it up nicely.. :)

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Let's begin with the "abstract" part first. Are you suggesting that that which is abstract does not bear fruit in the everyday reality of which we know? Yet obviously this is the very thing which acts behind our nature isn't it? So, we can at least assess this much with human beings. As for the rest of reality, it no doubt has its abstract aspects as well, don't you think? Except that as human beings we are conscious and aware that this abstract state exists. Is that to say this abstract state does not exist with anything else? Of course not. It only suggests that human beings are allowed to perceive it because our brains have evolved to allow us to do so.

So, if this abstract state of thought was pre-existent to the forming of the Universe, where could it have possibly originated?


Utter rubbish. Anyways, you did not answer my question:

What is the likelyhood of anything working, such as "some abstract, omniscient, all-powerful state of essence or being?"

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Perhaps I'm not making myself too clear here? I don't believe in chance. Basically what I'm saying is that what we mistake for chance, is merely an "illusion" which is derived from our inability to understand the full complexity of things. Meaning the more complexity that exists, the more likely it will seem things occur by chance. Yet obviously that isn't the case. What is the "chance" of anything happening without a whole diversity of "pre-existing" variables to choose from? And what other choice is to be made, except by the specific interaction which occurs between these pre-existing variables? In other words it's the complex relationship between cause-and-effect all the way. And so has nothing to do with this "mysterious" (hmm ...) non-complex order of things that we call "chance."

Hence "this being" would entail the total complexity of things, and thus become the very ground of existence for everything else.


Are you arguing for determinism? I can understand that the concept of "chance" has no meaning if one considers that everything has a deterministic cause-effect relationship. Chance then becomes a question of knowledge. If all possible outcomes of all events exist, then indeed that would be grounds for a collective term that includes all these things. Isn't that just equivalent to the "universe"? Why introduce an additional "being" over and above the totality of things?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you realize that the only way chance can exist is by total complexity?

:( No, I didn't realize that. Sounds a bit like New Age jargon, but I could be wrong. Please explain.

PS. I did scan earlier quotes, but did not see a direct answer.

[Eos of the Eons]

We are here because of of the selection pressures that caused x genes to be passed onto successive generations. This is not a random process. There are specifics that caused the selection. Ice ages really pushed populations to evolve...for example.

There is nothing random about our being "here".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

Are you arguing for determinism? I can understand that the concept of "chance" has no meaning if one considers that everything has a deterministic cause-effect relationship. Chance then becomes a question of knowledge. If all possible outcomes of all events exist, then indeed that would be grounds for a collective term that includes all these things. Isn't that just equivalent to the "universe"? Why introduce an additional "being" over and above the totality of things? The thing is -- and yes, your's is a correct assessment here -- if you eliminate the possibility of chance, you've also eliminated the possibility of the Universe coming from nothing which, are two things that need to removed before you can even begin to consider whether God exists or not. So I'm just trying to get a couple of road blocks out of the way in that respect. Why introduce an additional "being?" Because we're speaking of that which is pre-existent and yet entails the propensity for total complexity, and hence the notion of omniscience for one thing.

Also, if the Universe was wholly deterministic, as "we" seem to suggest, then it doesn't take into account free will. And, the only way that would be possible is if the Universe was but a "subset" to something else which, was a containant of free will, and that would be God ... from which we (all that is living) derive our own notions of free will.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
then it doesn't take into account free will.


What is that?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
Utter rubbish. Anyways, you did not answer my question:

What is the likelyhood of anything working, such as "some abstract, omniscient, all-powerful state of essence or being?"



:)

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The thing is -- and yes, your's is a correct assessment here -- if you eliminate the possibility of chance, you've also eliminated the possibility of the Universe coming from nothing which, are two things that need to removed before you can even begin to consider whether God exists or not. So I'm just trying to get a couple of road blocks out of the way in that respect.


I think it depends on one's definition of chance. In my previous post and your response, we are talking about the elimination of chance where chance is defined in terms of an event that has no cause, the event being the creation of reality. So the argument really boils down to how you define causality compared to chance with respect to our definition.

While I said that I understand your argument, I'm not sure if it's the only alternative. For instance, can we indeed conceive of an event that has no cause?




Why introduce an additional "being?" Because we're speaking of that which is pre-existent and yet entails the propensity for total complexity, and hence the notion of omniscience for one thing.


I assume you mean that the being is pre-existent to the physical universe. In which case the being must be the cause of the physical univserse. But once you argue this, then you have the same argument over again with regards to the origin of the being, i.e., the being cannot have come about by chance and therefore you have eliminated the possibility of the being coming from nothing. Therefore the being must have a cause just like the physical universe. It's an infinite loop. :(

Alternatively, if you say that the being has no cause then why can't you apply this argument to the origin of the physical univserse?



Also, if the Universe was wholly deterministic, as "we" seem to suggest, then it doesn't take into account free will. And, the only way that would be possible is if the Universe was but a "subset" to something else which, was a containant of free will, and that would be God ... from which we (all that is living) derive our own notions of free will.


I don't understand this bit. Could you elaborate?

[H3LL]

Saw the title.

Saw it was Iacchus.

Skipped to the end and posted:

No!

Did I miss anything?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by H3LL


Did I miss anything?

Nope. arguments from ignorance are soooo boring.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

What is that?

Do you know what dualism is? Like the difference between hot and cold, and all that kind of good stuff, from which we define a "workable" range? Why else would Science take so many measurements, if not to establish a relationship between such things?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you know what dualism is? Like the difference between hot and cold, and all that kind of good stuff, from which we define a "workable" range? Why else would Science take so many measurements, if not to establish a relationship between such things?


Iacchus,

I asked what free will is.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

Iacchus,

I asked what free will is.

And if the Universe, which is temporal and determinate, were but a subset of God, which is Eternal and non-determinate ... based upon free will in other words?

[Donks]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
Iacchus,

I asked what free will is.

And if the Universe, which is temporal and determinate, were but a subset of God, which is Eternal and non-determinate ... based upon free will in other words?
Seems to me Lord Emsworth is asking for a definition of "free will". Do you have one?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Donks

Seems to me Lord Emsworth is asking for a definition of "free will". Do you have one? And, am I to "assume" that my notion of free will is different than anyone else's? Try looking it up in the dictionary.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And, am I to "assume" that my notion of free will is different than anyone else's? Try looking it up in the dictionary.
Ok... Do you believe free will exists?

[Eos of the Eons]

free will
n.
The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.

The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.


Free will is only a "phrase" that means anything if you are religious. It is a nonsense phrase to those who do not ascribe to some gods controlling your every move and thought.

To me it means nothing, for instance. I have a brain, I use it. I have a body, I move it. Now, if I was a paralyzed vegetable...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Donks

Ok... Do you believe free will exists? Yes.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Free will is only a "phrase" that means anything if you are religious. It is a nonsense phrase to those who do not ascribe to some gods controlling your every move and thought.
Not necessarily. I am an atheist, but I belive in free will, which I define as the ability to choose between avalible, percieved options. Now I do not deny that when we "think" we are choosing, we may be influenced by factors of which we are unaware, thus I have accepted that what I am describing may be only "apparent" free will. However, I still contend that until it is possible to discriminate between apparent free will and actual free will, the distinction is moot. The term "free will" is a useful generalism like "mind" or "love" which describes a set of conditions recognizable by many. As such, it has value as a term of description, even if it isn't a "thing".

Don't try to tell me "love" doesn't exist, my comely friend. Ms. Tricky would be devastated.

[Eos of the Eons]

The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Ah, so your definition includes a definition of "external circumstances" :D

But you do not believe that your choices are already pre-determined by a god or something.

I feel my choices had better be influenced by my experiences, or I am liable to repeat stupid mistakes (dreadful thought!!) :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Free will is only a "phrase" that means anything if you are religious. It is a nonsense phrase to those who do not ascribe to some gods controlling your every move and thought.It is a nonsense phrase to those who believe the Universe is wholly deterministic and, that we somehow arrived here by chance, two things which are wholly contradictory to each other ...

[Donks]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes.
Ok. Do you feel it is compatible with an omniscient god?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Donks

Ok. Do you feel it is compatible with an omniscient god? Yes, simply becasue God, in His understanding of the total complexity of things (i.e., omniscience), is the source of free will.

By the way, Tricky's notion of free will goes a long way to express my own notion of free will as well.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, simply becasue God, in His understanding of the total complexity of things (i.e., omniscience), is the source of free will.
Then god knows exactly how everyone will respond to every situation, and has known it since before creation. The actions god has taken have forced every action every human will ever take. So, in order for things to happen as they have, god could not chose something that would not lead to the present state. Seems god's free will is a bit restricted, as well as ours.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Free will is only a "phrase" that means anything if you are religious. It is a nonsense phrase to those who do not ascribe to some gods controlling your every move and thought.Not quite. It is also a handy phrase for advertising agencies.

A dear friend of mine once attended an advertising school. One of the subjects he was taught in was psychology and in that class he learned every trick to influence people's buying. He was told that this is not manipulation, because "in the end people have Free Will to choose what they want, and it is impossible to influence that."

So advertisers can sleep at night because all the tricks they use to manipulate people into buying stuff supposedly don't manipulate people into buying stuff. So it is not their fault these people are buying all that junk with money they usually don't have.

And the 'Free Will' excuse comes in handy in the opposite situation as well. If they make an ad campaign that does not result in increased sales for the company they make it for, they will never have to admit that their campaign failed to manipulate people into buying the stuff. They can always claim: "Sorry, but people have Free Will, and they just don't want to buy your product. We can't change their Free Will." instead of "Our ads suck and don't convince anyone."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Donks

Then god knows exactly how everyone will respond to every situation, and has known it since before creation. The actions god has taken have forced every action every human will ever take. So, in order for things to happen as they have, god could not chose something that would not lead to the present state. Seems god's free will is a bit restricted, as well as ours. Yet it's one thing to acknowledge something that occurs and another thing to act on it. The two are not one and the same. While it is conceivable that one could set things up, and then of one's own volition, allow things to run their course, in which case God's free will has no bearing on the matter. Unless of course we should concern ourselves with any inconsistencies of God's will? ... But then again if God were all powerfull and all knowing, where would we find the proclivity to make mistakes, hence the need to change anything?

[Donks]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet it's one thing to acknowledge something that occurs and another thing to act on it. The two are not one and the same. While it is conceivable that one could set things up, and then of one's own volition, allow things to run their course, in which case God's free will has no bearing on the matter. Unless of course we should concern ourselves with any inconsistencies of God's will? ... But then again if God were all powerfull and all knowing, where would we find the proclivity to make mistakes, hence the need to change anything?
God didn't just "set thngs up and ... allow things to run their course." He either had no alternatives, in which case he has no free will, or he chose this particular alternatives over any others, in case humans don't have free will.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It is a nonsense phrase to those who believe the Universe is wholly deterministic and, that we somehow arrived here by chance, two things which are wholly contradictory to each other ... Only to you, Iacchus. Your definition of determinism is vastly different from most scientists, for instance.

Tell me...does your version of determinism have any room for random chance events?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus

By the way, Tricky's notion of free will goes a long way to express my own notion of free will as well. Gee, and I was gonna let Tricky slide on that one....not any more.

Tricky is, of course, wrong. I shall have to flame the poor boy soon....

originally by Trixie
Not necessarily. I am an atheist, but I belive in free will, which I define as the ability to choose between avalible, percieved options. Now I do not deny that when we "think" we are choosing, we may be influenced by factors of which we are unaware, thus I have accepted that what I am describing may be only "apparent" free will. However, I still contend that until it is possible to discriminate between apparent free will and actual free will, the distinction is moot. The term "free will" is a useful generalism like "mind" or "love" which describes a set of conditions recognizable by many. As such, it has value as a term of description, even if it isn't a "thing".

Don't try to tell me "love" doesn't exist, my comely friend. Ms. Tricky would be devastated. Love exists, dearie. Ms Tricky need never be devastated as long as Mercutio can defend love, and Mercutio will defend love to his dying breath. (And yeah, I have explained "love" as a category of behaviors in a thread months ago, but as this is an Iacchus thread, I will not bother to dig it up).

"Mind"...blech. Yeah, we can explain everything typically described as "mind" as a category of private behaviors, but "mind" as a causal entity is just a nasty little fiction, and does not deserve to be in the same sentence as love...

"Free will"? Now them's fightin' words. There really is no use for the term except as an allegedly causal agent in our behavior. As such, it is not a category of behaviors (after all, what "free will" allegedly causes differs from example to example), but simply a circularly defined fictional cause. Free will is, for lack of a better phrase, just another word for ignorance. If we don't know the cause, it must be "free will"...cuz, of course, it couldn't be chance, and it couldn't be simply something that we don't know about!

Free will is not a helpful term, Trixie. Stick to Love. Ms. Tricky will thank you.

:p

[MLynn]

Are we here by chance?

This title made me think of my mom and dad. Dad was a severely burned soldier during WWII and my mom was an Army nurse. She fell in love with my dad even though he was in a wheelchair and in hospitals for five years. If they had not met and married, I would not be here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Tell me...does your version of determinism have any room for random chance events? Only in a Universe that involves total complexity and, an operating will behind it. In other words ... No.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

"Free will"? Now them's fightin' words. There really is no use for the term except as an allegedly causal agent in our behavior. As such, it is not a category of behaviors (after all, what "free will" allegedly causes differs from example to example), but simply a circularly defined fictional cause. Free will is, for lack of a better phrase, just another word for ignorance. If we don't know the cause, it must be "free will"...cuz, of course, it couldn't be chance, and it couldn't be simply something that we don't know about! We are free to do stupid things (out of ignorance) and, as a result, suffer the consequences.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

I think it depends on one's definition of chance. In my previous post and your response, we are talking about the elimination of chance where chance is defined in terms of an event that has no cause, the event being the creation of reality. So the argument really boils down to how you define causality compared to chance with respect to our definition.

While I said that I understand your argument, I'm not sure if it's the only alternative. For instance, can we indeed conceive of an event that has no cause? But still, at some point, this is what argument boils down to. Can something come from nothing? If not, then what does that something entail?


I assume you mean that the being is pre-existent to the physical universe. In which case the being must be the cause of the physical univserse. But once you argue this, then you have the same argument over again with regards to the origin of the being, i.e., the being cannot have come about by chance and therefore you have eliminated the possibility of the being coming from nothing. Therefore the being must have a cause just like the physical universe. It's an infinite loop. :( Yes, but can something give rise to itself (out of nothing), unless it's always existed?


Alternatively, if you say that the being has no cause then why can't you apply this argument to the origin of the physical univserse?Because the Universe has a beginning, and is temporal.


I don't understand this bit. Could you elaborate? Am suggesting there's a difference between the Creator and that which is created, the Universe being a subset of God in other words.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Only in a Universe that involves total complexity and, an operating will behind it. In other words ... No. And this, in a nutshell, is the difference between your view of determinism and the scientific community's view. Yours is not determinism so much as predestination, and because it literally cannot be supported by the evidence, it is purely an article of faith.

Your evidence, in this forum, for your view of <s>predestination</s> determinism, has invariably been post hoc. You look at an event, and claim it "could not have happened any other way", and therefore is consistent with both determinism and predestination. Chaos theory disagrees with you, but that is not a problem from your perspective, because it is your article of faith that all of Chaos is simply incomplete knowledge of variables. Chaos claims that there is inherent uncertainty; you claim that there is none, but merely that humans cannot be that accurate. Of course, if you are right....you could not possibly have evidence that you are! A nice catch, that catch-22....

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

And this, in a nutshell, is the difference between your view of determinism and the scientific community's view. Yours is not determinism so much as predestination, and because it literally cannot be supported by the evidence, it is purely an article of faith.Actually no. Albeit God may full well know what we choose, we don't know it, and there's no possible way we could know it (although we might get inklings of it), so we may as well behave from the standpoint of not knowing and begin to make our choices accordingly, so that we at least attempt to understand the choices that we make. Besides that, if God Himself were endowed with free will (which He must be), how much more trouble would it be for Him to pass that on to His offspring, "us?" Indeed, how could we ourselves "play God," if we didn't have so many choices at our disposal?


Your evidence, in this forum, for your view of <s>predestination</s> determinism, has invariably been post hoc. You look at an event, and claim it "could not have happened any other way", and therefore is consistent with both determinism and predestination. Chaos theory disagrees with you, but that is not a problem from your perspective, because it is your article of faith that all of Chaos is simply incomplete knowledge of variables. Chaos claims that there is inherent uncertainty; you claim that there is none, but merely that humans cannot be that accurate. Of course, if you are right....you could not possibly have evidence that you are! A nice catch, that catch-22.... If it was merely a matter of conjecture on my part and, it was all I could possibly hope to establish, simply because the genuine article doesn't exist (which is basically what I keep hearing), then yes, you might have a point.

[Paul]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If it was merely a matter of conjecture on my part and, it was all I could possibly hope to establish, simply because the genuine article doesn't exist (which is basically what I keep hearing), then yes, you might have a point.Are you implying that it is anything other than conjecture?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And if the Universe, which is temporal and determinate, were but a subset of God, which is Eternal and non-determinate ... based upon free will in other words?


I think that the alterantive to deterministic is indeterministic, IOW randomness. So, eliminating the deterministic alternative means that "God"-thingy is based on randomness, no?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Paul

Are you implying that it is anything other than conjecture? Need I say I more? :con2:

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Need I say I more? :con2: "Yes" or "No" would have been nice...:rolleyes:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth

I think that the alterantive to deterministic is indeterministic, IOW randomness. So, eliminating the deterministic alternative means that "God"-thingy is based on randomness, no?

That's a good question. If you base it on a God full of endless possibilities, of which our Universe is but a single possibility, it's hard to say. Of course if God's mind were infinitely complex, I don't suppose it would matter either way.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

"Yes" or "No" would have been nice...:rolleyes: To whom? Do you mean it would have been nice to watch me drop off the edge of a cliff? :D It was baited question though you see ... Besides, you and most the other folks on this board already know what my position is on that. ;)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
To whom? Do you mean it would have been nice to watch me drop off the edge of a cliff? :D It was baited question though you see ... Besides, you and most the other folks on this board already know what my position is on that. ;) Ah, but we do not know whether you know your position...

Drop off a cliff? Iacchus, this is a discussion forum--if you are not willing to defend your ideas, why bring them here? Do you have so little faith in yourself?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Ah, but we do not know whether you know your position...And yet the way the question was phrased, it was only a reiteration of what I had already said, that I am merely responding to "your" implications that God doesn't exist, in which case it doesn't merit much of a reply, nothing that would further the discussion anyway.


Drop off a cliff? Iacchus, this is a discussion forum--if you are not willing to defend your ideas, why bring them here? Do you have so little faith in yourself? Albeit there is no point in taking it past your unwillingness to listen.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet the way the question was phrased, it was only a reiteration of what I had already said, that I am merely responding to "your" implications that God doesn't exist, in which case it doesn't merit much of a reply, nothing that would further the discussion anyway.
I took Paul's question as an honest inquiry, asking you to be a bit more clear. That is why I though it deserved an honest answer. Obviously, you read his question differently than I did.

Albeit there is no point in taking it past your unwillingness to listen. Please provide evidence for any claim that I am unwilling to listen. I think any reading of these threads will show that I give your ideas more thought than you do.

[Paul]

beaten to it by Mercutio...

Originally posted by Iacchus
It was baited question though you see ... Besides, you and most the other folks on this board already know what my position is on that. ;) In what way was it a baited question, given that it was my first in this thread? And yes it was, as Merc says, an honest request for clarification; I asked because by implying that it is not conjecture you obviously imply that you have definite knowledge, something beyond faith. This would be interesting because most of your posts contain a lot of ifs, which imply a lack of knowledge.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I took Paul's question as an honest inquiry, asking you to be a bit more clear. That is why I though it deserved an honest answer. Obviously, you read his question differently than I did.
Please provide evidence for any claim that I am unwilling to listen. I think any reading of these threads will show that I give your ideas more thought than you do. Well, perhaps in reply to Paul's question ...


Originally posted by Paul
Originally posted by Iacchus
If it was merely a matter of conjecture on my part and, it was all I could possibly hope to establish, simply because the genuine article doesn't exist (which is basically what I keep hearing), then yes, you might have a point.
Are you implying that it is anything other than conjecture? I should have replied, "Yes, obviously."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Paul

In what way was it a baited question, given that it was my first in this thread? And yes it was, as Merc says, an honest request for clarification; I asked because by implying that it is not conjecture you obviously imply that you have definite knowledge, something beyond faith. This would be interesting because most of your posts contain a lot of ifs, which imply a lack of knowledge. And yet about all I can do is get you to ask yourself the same questions. I cannot furnish you with the answers.

[Paul]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I should have replied, "Yes, obviously." Would you care to share this great knowledge with the rest of us?

And yet about all I can do is get you to ask yourself the same questions. I cannot furnish you with the answers.Well, one of those statements is a lie.

Why would I want to enter into random speculation about the innumerable possible natures of your mythical friend, or it's role in this or any other universe?

Pondering whether god is “full of endless possibilities� or “if god's mind were infinitely complex� are entirely pointless diversions for someone who doesn’t believe in any god(s). Even if it were a philosophical exercise the answers would be whatever you wanted them to be, given the infinite scope allowed by the questions.


Those whose business it is to study the unfathomable complexities of the universe(s) have different beliefs about ideas such as:

Is this the only universe?

Is this one of many contemporary universes?

Is this the billion billion billionth universe, but the only one with the exact conditions for life, as we understand it?

etc.



The thought comes to mind: If I had a helmet full of cheese...

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, perhaps in reply to Paul's question ...

I should have replied, "Yes, obviously." A simple "yes" would do--if it was indeed "obvious", Paul would not have had to ask the question.

I am curious how you can claim to have definitive special knowledge, and yet claim that you would be unable to furnish us with answers about the topics that special knowledge is about. If all you can do is get us to ask ourselves the same questions, how do you know your knowledge is anything special?


And...sorry, Paul, I did not mean to beat you to anything.
edited to add...turnabout is fair play--you beat me this time!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Paul

Would you care to share this great knowledge with the rest of us?

Well, one of those statements is a lie.

Why would I want to enter into random speculation about the innumerable possible natures of your mythical friend, or it's role in this or any other universe?If you have to ask, then why ask why? Which is how your orginal question came across to me ... that you had already determined the answer for yourself.


Pondering whether god is “full of endless possibilities� or “if god's mind were infinitely complex� are entirely pointless diversions for someone who doesn’t believe in any god(s). Exactly, this is the point I was trying to make. So, why should I bother?


The thought comes to mind: If I had a helmet full of cheese... You bet!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

I am curious how you can claim to have definitive special knowledge, and yet claim that you would be unable to furnish us with answers about the topics that special knowledge is about. If all you can do is get us to ask ourselves the same questions, how do you know your knowledge is anything special? The only thing special about it is that it's intimate knowledge which, if you truly understood, is the only way we can come to know anything. For example, how would you know that 1 + 1 = 2, aside from the fact that your teacher told you so? It's one thing to memorize an equation, and another to truly understand what it means don't you think? And what does this meaning entail, if not the intimate acknowledgment of something?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only thing special about it is that it's intimate knowledge which, if you truly understood, is the only way we can come to know anything. For example, how would you know that 1 + 1 = 2, aside from the fact that your teacher told you so? It's one thing to memorize an equation, and another to truly understand what it means don't you think? And what does this meaning entail, if not the intimate acknowledgment of something? Are you saying you do not understand it well enough to communicate it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Are you saying you do not understand it well enough to communicate it? I understand it well enough to know that it exists. Communicating it however, is an entirely different story. You have to make allowances for people's ability or, inability to accept it on the same level you have. And, unless they've experienced something remotely similar or, understand how to interpret what they have experienced (which is pretty much all I try to address in my threads here), it just doesn't work.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I understand it well enough to know that it exists. . May we assume, then, that you have critically examined your experience, and have evidence that the simpler explanations (e.g., it was not revealed truth, but an ordinary dream; the numbers were not a message, but data-mining to confirm an a priori belief) do not apply to your case? Could you share some of this process with us?

[username]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, what we have to ask is how is it possible for things to order themselves out of the blue. Does this at all seem likely? Of course it doesn't. So obviously what we need to ask is what are the "preconditions" which must be present in order to give the "appearance" that things are ordered in that fashion. And if we understood that chance is merely an "illusion" derived from our inability to understand the full complexity of things, then we have our answer.

I agree with you that there is no such thing as chance. It is said that if I flip a coin the odds(chance/probability) of it landing one particular side up is 50%.

In reality there is no chance involved here. The coin's "chance" of landing 'heads' up is either 100% or 0%, not 50% as most would say.

Of course saying the odds/chance/probability is 50% works out since a coin toss repeated many times will often work out to both sides being face up 50% of the time.

Still it is a myth to say the odds are 50% for any particular coin toss, they are 100% or 0%.

The reason we have to settle for 50% is because, as you say, we don't understand the complexities.

Which way the coin will land depends on where our finger hits the coin, how much force is applied, the height to the landing surface and many other factors. If we could take all factors into account we would always list the odds as 0% or 100%, never 50%. The 50% is an indicator what we have not understood the complexities properly.

Still, I can flip a coin without the help of any god.

If the odds of a coin toss can be accounted for without any god involved, why not the existence of the universe?

[Donks]

Originally posted by username
I agree with you that there is no such thing as chance. It is said that if I flip a coin the odds(chance/probability) of it landing one particular side up is 50%.

In reality there is no chance involved here. The coin's "chance" of landing 'heads' up is either 100% or 0%, not 50% as most would say.

Of course saying the odds/chance/probability is 50% works out since a coin toss repeated many times will often work out to both sides being face up 50% of the time.

Still it is a myth to say the odds are 50% for any particular coin toss, they are 100% or 0%.

The reason we have to settle for 50% is because, as you say, we don't understand the complexities.

Which way the coin will land depends on where our finger hits the coin, how much force is applied, the height to the landing surface and many other factors. If we could take all factors into account we would always list the odds as 0% or 100%, never 50%. The 50% is an indicator what we have not understood the complexities properly.

Still, I can flip a coin without the help of any god.

If the odds of a coin toss can be accounted for without any god involved, why not the existence of the universe?
That seems to me like a very easy statement to make: If we had all information, then we could predict the exact outcome of the system. Is it a statement that can be tested? Do we have all the information about any system? Is it possible to have all the information about a given real world system?

[username]

Originally posted by Donks
That seems to me like a very easy statement to make: If we had all information, then we could predict the exact outcome of the system. Is it a statement that can be tested? Do we have all the information about any system? Is it possible to have all the information about a given real world system?

It is an easy statement to make. It is also self evidently true.

If we had all information we could know (not predict) the outcome of any scenario.

It is the lack of information which makes the knowing uncertain.

Will it rain tomorrow? The weatherman says there is a 30% chance? What does that mean? It means that taking into account everything that is known there is a 30% chance it will rain. If all that could be known was known the weather man would say there is a 0% or 100% chance it would rain.

Whether or not we can know every relevant detail is not relevant to the point.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

May we assume, then, that you have critically examined your experience, and have evidence that the simpler explanations (e.g., it was not revealed truth, but an ordinary dream; the numbers were not a message, but data-mining to confirm an a priori belief) do not apply to your case? Could you share some of this process with us? If you follow this link (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=206), it reffers to many of the phenomena I experienced (detailed in my book) which helped me come to this conclusion. It's something which should be taken as a whole, however, as it occurred over a 20-30 year period and, should not be pinpointed down to one or two occurrences.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by username

If the odds of a coin toss can be accounted for without any god involved, why not the existence of the universe? Yet here we are determining that which has already been determined, so how do you know? At this point we are merely recognizing how things work, not how they came about. Also, the key to understanding the full complexity of things is omniscience, of which humans are incapable of. It does bring us one step closer however, to establishing that God could have had something to do with it. We still have to examine the nature of total or, shall we say, infinite complexity though, and what that means in terms of the beginning of our Universe. Obviously it didn't occur by chance, did it?

Thanks for your input though, I couldn't have expected a much better reply! :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by username

If we had all information we could know (not predict) the outcome of any scenario. Yes.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by username
I agree with you that there is no such thing as chance. It is said that if I flip a coin the odds(chance/probability) of it landing one particular side up is 50%.

In reality there is no chance involved here. The coin's "chance" of landing 'heads' up is either 100% or 0%, not 50% as most would say.
[snip]
No. You are confusing probability and outcomes. There is a 100% or 0% probability of a coin having landed (note past tense) heads up. After the fact, the probability of anything that has occurred is 1.00 (or 100%), and the probability of anythign that has not occurred is 0.00 (or 0%). But that is not at all the same as assigning probability before an event. A priori, the probability of a "hit" is quite simply the number of possible hits (say, how many sides of a coin are "heads") divided by the number of possible outcomes (say, how many sides does this particular coin have). Yes, of course, we can get a little more complicated with a posteriori determinations of weighted coins, or conditional probabilities, or...well, enough to fill a college course on probability and statistics...but to confuse the probability of a past even having happened and the probability of an event happening in the future is ... well, it is what Iacchus does with his view of determinism. He sees the world as it is as the only possible way it could have been. It is not. It is the only possible way it could be, because it is the observed outcome. It is not the only possible way it could have been, because each outcome along the way, prior to its occurring, could have had another outcome. His conclusion, "Obviously, it didn't occur by chance, did it?" is utter nonsense supported by a misunderstanding of probability.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you follow this link (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=206), it reffers to many of the phenomena I experienced (detailed in my book) which helped me come to this conclusion. It's something which should be taken as a whole, however, as it occurred over a 20-30 year period and, should not be pinpointed down to one or two occurrences. You know I do not click on your links any more. And I am not asking about the phenomena you experienced--you have posted your dreams and numerology and odd coincidences here many times; I am asking about your critical analysis of these phenomena. Did you try to evaluate them to see if there might be a mundane explanation for them, or did you just take them at face value? You are making grandiose claims of the nature of the universe...with the extraordinary evidence of....dreams? numbers? coincidences? Surely you must have put this evidence through some very serious examination before you would make such claims...so tell us about it.

[Paul]

How about this useful numerical coincidence, taken from Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything:for the universe to exist as it does requires that hydrogen be converted to helium in a precise but comparatively stately manner - specifically, in a way that converts seven one-thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly - from 0.007 per cent to 0.006 per cent, say - and no transformations could take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else. Raise the value very slightly - to 0.008 per cent - and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here.
Now consider this perfectly reasonable analogous explanation for such facts from Professor Martin Rees:If there is a large stock of clothing, you're not surprised to find a suit that fits. If there are many universes, each governed by a differing set of numbers, there will be one where there is a particular set of numbers suitable to life. We are in that one.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

He sees the world as it is as the only possible way it could have been. It is not. It is the only possible way it could be, because it is the observed outcome. It is not the only possible way it could have been, because each outcome along the way, prior to its occurring, could have had another outcome. As if to say everything "physical" does not have its coordinates within time and space and is not so "aligned" to behave in a certain fashion according to every other physical thing around it?


His conclusion, "Obviously, it didn't occur by chance, did it?" is utter nonsense supported by a misunderstanding of probability. And, to suggest that the Universe came about by chance, is to suggest something can from nothing which, is totally "improbable" in my book.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
As if to say everything "physical" does not have its coordinates within time and space and is not so "aligned" to behave in a certain fashion according to every other physical thing around it?
Did you read Paul's post just above? If these things did not "align", you would not be asking the question. It is quite impossible to know whether there are other, non-aligning universes. To suggest that you do know, when such privelidged information is withheld from the rest of humanity, is pretty amusing.

And, to suggest that the Universe came about by chance, is to suggest something can from nothing which, is totally "improbable" in my book. Argument from ignorance noted.

Still...there is a universe of difference between "improbable" and "impossible". Our universe may well be improbable...so is winning the lottery, and someone does it every week.

[Paul]

While I'm doing quotes, a few on improbability:
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bog-gglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Douglas Adams Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.

Galileo GalileiComplex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.

Richard DawkinsThe proof of evolution lies in those adaptations that arise from improbable foundations.

Stephen Jay Gould

And to reiterate the obvious from Merc's post; the improbable happens all the time but a supreme being didn't arrange the letters in your name into their improbable order, or the registration of your car or the serial number on your pc motherboard.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

You know I do not click on your links any more. And I am not asking about the phenomena you experienced--you have posted your dreams and numerology and odd coincidences here many times; I am asking about your critical analysis of these phenomena. Did you try to evaluate them to see if there might be a mundane explanation for them, or did you just take them at face value? You are making grandiose claims of the nature of the universe...with the extraordinary evidence of....dreams? numbers? coincidences? Surely you must have put this evidence through some very serious examination before you would make such claims...so tell us about it. It really has more to do with an attitude that you develop when you approach these things. And, if you read chapter 11 (http://www.dionysus.org/x1101.html) of the book, I talk about how I came to develop this attitude.

[Z]

Whenever I see posts like that one, Iacchus, I'm reminded from the character from VCPR, Jeremy Robard, who keeps trying to plug his 12-step program.

Completely off-topic - but I almost picture you in a cheap suit and a bad toupee...

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It really has more to do with an attitude that you develop when you approach these things. And, if you read chapter 11 (http://www.dionysus.org/x1101.html) of the book, I talk about how I came to develop this attitude. You did read where I said I don't click your links anymore, no?

From what you have posted here, there are no surprises in how you developed your attitude; those are the sorts of things one can come to believe when one does not critically examine one's thoughts. Your own particular house of cards is no more or less remarkable than any number of others. They are elaborate and fanciful, and topple in a light breeze.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Whenever I see posts like that one, Iacchus, I'm reminded from the character from VCPR, Jeremy Robard, who keeps trying to plug his 12-step program.

Completely off-topic - but I almost picture you in a cheap suit and a bad toupee... I'm not the one who asked. Besides, it's been a long time since I've plugged my book.

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I'm not the one who asked. Besides, it's been a long time since I've plugged my book.

Just to further derail your thread - are you still looking to publish it? I don't see why not - your writing skills are at least entertaining, and people buy the damnedest books, so have you been considering it? Just curious.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

You did read where I said I don't click your links anymore, no?

From what you have posted here, there are no surprises in how you developed your attitude; those are the sorts of things one can come to believe when one does not critically examine one's thoughts. Your own particular house of cards is no more or less remarkable than any number of others. They are elaborate and fanciful, and topple in a light breeze. Remember when I first brought this up?


Originally posted by Iacchus

If it was merely a matter of conjecture on my part and, it was all I could possibly hope to establish, simply because the genuine article doesn't exist (which is basically what I keep hearing), then yes, you might have a point. I don't see any difference in your arguing here in the least.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Just to further derail your thread - are you still looking to publish it? I don't see why not - your writing skills are at least entertaining, and people buy the damnedest books, so have you been considering it? Just curious. I honestly couldn't tell you. I have no idea what's going to happen from one day to the next (albeit I don't believe in chance ;)), let alone what's going to happen with the book.

[elle_inquisitor]

So are you infering that people are merely bystanders in their own lives? From reading chapter 11 I get the impression that we are merely reliving the experiences of other's. Would that make God the Ultimate Puppet Master?

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I honestly couldn't tell you. I have no idea what's going to happen from one day to the next (albeit I don't believe in chance ;)), let alone what's going to happen with the book.

Well, this could explain the lack of progress in your life...

Make some plans, man! Get some goals in your life!! Move your bum-arse out of yo momma's basement, brush your teeth, get a real job, and make something of yourself!!!

:D

Just kidding - Seriously, though, you are as much in control of your own life as anything else. If you want to publish that book, go out and make it happen. Don't let the days rule you - rule the days!

(note to reader: Doesn't this make Iacchus seem either lazy or clueless?)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by elle_inquisitor

So are you infering that people are merely bystanders in their own lives? From reading chapter 11 I get the impression that we are merely reliving the experiences of other's. Would that make God the Ultimate Puppet Master? I can see what you're saying, and lot of it has to do with the attitude I'm speaking about here, for it requires you to kind of step outside of yourself, by means of the "observation" meditation technique developed by Roy Masters (http://www.fhu.com/) by the way (listed several times in chapter 11 (http://www.dionysus.org/x1101.html)), to observe yourself and those things around you. Which, is when you begin to experience a sense of synchronicity and interconnectedness about things ... hence your notion of God the Puppet Master. For those people who immerse themselves in their lives, however, chances are they're not going to see it.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Remember when I first brought this up?

I don't see any difference in your arguing here in the least. You have yet to address my arguments, so it should not be terribly surprising. Do you plan to?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Just to further derail your thread - are you still looking to publish it? I don't see why not - your writing skills are at least entertaining, and people buy the damnedest books, so have you been considering it? Just curious. Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, this could explain the lack of progress in your life...

Make some plans, man! Get some goals in your life!! Move your bum-arse out of yo momma's basement, brush your teeth, get a real job, and make something of yourself!!!

:D

Just kidding - Seriously, though, you are as much in control of your own life as anything else. If you want to publish that book, go out and make it happen. Don't let the days rule you - rule the days!

(note to reader: Doesn't this make Iacchus seem either lazy or clueless?) The book was an attempt to write something that was real. This is why I seem to be at odds as to what to do with it, because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, not without my instilling something into it that wasn't originally there. And I'm just not going to go there. I just figured if the guy upstairs wants it published He will provide the means. If not, then I will be the one to suffer for not being able to accomplish what I set out to do. Now that isn't to say an outlet hasn't been provided in order for me to express my views (i.e., that's what I'm doing here and, why I started up my own forums), but I had no idea that things were going to turn out the way they did. So in many ways it's hard to reconcile yourself with that. I figured by now I would have several books under my belt, have my own organization and, be making a difference in the way people think ... all in the revival (more so in the classical sense) of the wine-god Dionysus.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

You have yet to address my arguments, so it should not be terribly surprising. Do you plan to? What is cognizance? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52272) Are we to doubt this, albeit it's the only thing we truly have?

[Z]

So, Iacchus, I guess this goes to show that God helps those who help themselves? If you figured all this, then you should be out there making it happen. After all, what gift from God could be more important than our Free Will? Internet fora are ephemeral; they are dust all too soon. But books survive, and organizations leave their mark; electronic fora are gone, when the power goes out.

Do for yourself, and trust that God will open doors along the way. Don't trust God to take your hand and walk you through every step.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But still, at some point, this is what argument boils down to. Can something come from nothing? If not, then what does that something entail?

I suppose it has to entail "everything", and the definition of "everything" depends on what "thing" one is talking about i.e., mental or physical things.

There is an interesting book called "The End of Time" by Julain Barbour. In it he suggests that time is an illusion and every physical state of the universe has always existed. The illusion of time is created by the order in which we perceive each particular state of the universe. Or something like that anyway. I don't understand it very well I must admit.

The important issue though is that he is talking about physical states of the universe. In doing so, any form of a mental entity/being having a separate existence to physical states is denied.

I think the argument really boils down to the difference between the physical and mental and their true relationship between one another.



Because the Universe has a beginning, and is temporal.

mmm. Lots of questions:

Must the physical universe have a temporal beginning? That depends on the current theory I reckon.

Do you insist that the physical univserse must have a beginning. If so, how do you justify that?

If a materialist did say that the physical universe did not have a beginning then would the physical univserse still be a subset of "god"? Indeed would "god" be necessary?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

mmm. Lots of questions:

Must the physical universe have a temporal beginning? That depends on the current theory I reckon.

Do you insist that the physical univserse must have a beginning. If so, how do you justify that?

If a materialist did say that the physical universe did not have a beginning then would the physical univserse still be a subset of "god"? Indeed would "god" be necessary? And yet if you were to take a human embryo, which obviously came from something else, and compare that to the beginning of a new Universe -- which, in many ways it is -- we have to ask how it's possible for it to complete itself without the DNA which is passed on by that something else, its parents in other words? Which is to say, it didn't begin all by itself. So why can't we speak of a similar relationship between the Universe and God? At least in that sense we can account for the Big Bang, and the so-called appearance of nothing which, in fact entailed the hidden plan (comparable to DNA) behind the creation of a new Universe.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

I think the argument really boils down to the difference between the physical and mental and their true relationship between one another. Yes, and what if God did in fact exist, we would be speaking of the physical proceeding from the mental now wouldn't we? In which case we could account for the appearance of nothing prior to the Big Bang, and all of its physical manifestations afterwards.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet if you were to take a human embryo, which obviously came from something else, and compare that to the beginning of a new Universe -- which, in many ways it is -- we have to ask how it's possible for it to complete itself without the DNA which is passed on by that something else, its parents in other words? Which is to say, it didn't begin all by itself. So why can't we speak of a similar relationship between the Universe and God? At least in that sense we can account for the Big Bang, and the so-called appearance of nothing which, in fact entailed the hidden plan (comparable to DNA) behind the creation of a new Universe.

We can't speak of a similar relationship between the universe and god as that of an embryo and DNA because DNA also "comes from something". The formation of DNA is not able to occur itself without a host of other physical processes. This does not apply to your definition of god and that is where the analogy breaks down I feel.

While DNA is a subset of the physical universe, it is important to consider the possibility that such a universe does not need to come from anything. Hence my question - would "god" then be necessary?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

While DNA is a subset of the physical universe, it is important to consider the possibility that such a universe does not need to come from anything. Hence my question - would "god" then be necessary? And do you believe it's possible for that which is concrete to exist without that which is abstract? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=492) Could it in fact be possible that an abstract reality of "the mind" truly exists?

[Z]

Besides, DNA contains the code which has a purpose: the generation of an organism. The universe, however, demonstrates no purpose whatsoever, and no pattern; carries in it no code; and, ultimately, exists for no apparent reason whatsoever, least of all for the purpose of supporting life.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Besides, DNA contains the code which has a purpose: the generation of an organism. The universe, however, demonstrates no purpose whatsoever, and no pattern; carries in it no code; and, ultimately, exists for no apparent reason whatsoever, least of all for the purpose of supporting life. Except that at our end of the Universe, it seems to have developed a particular fetish for sentience ... which, is wholly abstract, compared to the "physical" reality which surrounds it.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and what if God did in fact exist, we would be speaking of the physical proceeding from the mental now wouldn't we? In which case we could account for the appearance of nothing prior to the Big Bang, and all of its physical manifestations afterwards.

Ah, now we are getting interesting. When you say "what if God did exist", this is really depending on one's definition of god. I think I am correct in saying that your definition includes the totality of mental things. And from mental things come the illusion of physical things, hence the physical univserse being a subset of the mental. So then I would probably agree with your notion of the physical universe being "created" by the mental universe if this is true. My reservations about the whole idea is that it boils down to justifying that mental things can give rise to physical things. I am willing to entertain the idea but I haven't explored it enough yet to be convinced it's true. On the other hand, I have serious doubts that the only reality is physical because this creates the unsurmountable hard problem of consciousness.

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
At least at our end of the Universe, it seems to have developed a fetish for sentience which, is wholly abstract, compared to the "physical" reality which surrounds it.

Fetish for sentience? If I wear a shirt designed for a woman once, in all my life, does that give me a fetish for transvestitism? Nay, silly noogle, the fact that we, so far, have evidence of only a single planet with any form of supposedly sentient life shows entirely that sentience, as such, is an anomaly. The universe, as a whole, is destructive to such sentience.

Now, are you saying that fetishes are abstract, or that sentience is abstract? And do you understand what 'abstract' actually means, or did you get that word in your Word-A-Day email too?

Abstract, FYI, is a concept which is not associated with any specific thing or idea. Sentience is clearly not abstract, but the term 'fetish', in itself, is abstract, until a specific fetish is mentioned.

You and lifegazer both have a problem using that term.

[Z]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Ah, now we are getting interesting. When you say "what if God did exist", this is really depending on one's definition of god. I think I am correct in saying that your definition includes the totality of mental things. And from mental things come the illusion of physical things, hence the physical univserse being a subset of the mental. So then I would probably agree with your notion of the physical universe being "created" by the mental universe if this is true. My reservations about the whole idea is that it boils down to justifying that mental things can give rise to physical things. I am willing to entertain the idea but I haven't explored it enough yet to be convinced it's true. On the other hand, I have serious doubts that the only reality is physical because this creates the unsurmountable hard problem of consciousness.

Given that every aspect of what we woulld consider to be 'consciousness' can be manipulated, altered, or destroyed via physical processes, I don't see any 'hard problem' at all... only a lot of egotistical misunderstanding of the phenomenon at hand. Clearly, it is the physical which gives rise to that which we call the 'mental' - after all, look at the history of the Earth. Tell me which had to come first: the physical world, or the mental processes of its life forms? And so it appears, throughout the Universe, that mental states are not needed at all for physical things to appear - only for sentient beings to perceive and comprehend those physical states.

DS, I suspect that, to some degree, you are another Humanicentrist who feels that the mental states of Man must have signifigance beyond the cut-and-dry physical reality that they appear to have. So how do you reconcile this concept with the theory - for I will agree, to call it otherwise is foolish - that the Universe of physical things is VASTLY older than any beings with mental awareness?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Given that every aspect of what we woulld consider to be 'consciousness' can be manipulated, altered, or destroyed via physical processes, I don't see any 'hard problem' at all... only a lot of egotistical misunderstanding of the phenomenon at hand.



If we adopt the materialist view, firstly there is only a correlation between the manipulation of physical things and a corresponding change is mental things. Secondly, it seems that in every example possible, physical things are defined in terms of the mental (observations). Thirdly, (and this is where the hard problem comes in) physical things are defined by logical relationships between observations whereas the truly different aspect of mental things is that they cannot be defined by logical relationships. The usual example is the redness of red.


Clearly, it is the physical which gives rise to that which we call the 'mental' - after all, look at the history of the Earth. Tell me which had to come first: the physical world, or the mental processes of its life forms?


Which comes first depends on your philosophical view. It's clear that the history of the earth came first if you adopt the materialist view. But if you take the mental route then there is no independent physical realm so the history of the earth cannot have come first. Rather the "illusion of the history of the earth coming first" came from the mental univserse. And that goes for all physically perceived things. Remember that any knowledge about the history of the earth is perceived.


And so it appears, throughout the Universe, that mental states are not needed at all for physical things to appear - only for sentient beings to perceive and comprehend those physical states.



The operative term being "so it appears"! However we all know that the reality of independent physical things is inferred. Perhaps this inference is wrong.


DS, I suspect that, to some degree, you are another Humanicentrist who feels that the mental states of Man must have signifigance beyond the cut-and-dry physical reality that they appear to have.


Not the mental states of man but mental states per se. "man" is part of the physical univserse.


So how do you reconcile this concept with the theory - for I will agree, to call it otherwise is foolish - that the Universe of physical things is VASTLY older than any beings with mental awareness?

Just the same as I would try to reconcile the concept with how any physical things are "created" from mental things. And that I am not sure.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Given that every aspect of what we woulld consider to be 'consciousness' can be manipulated, altered, or destroyed via physical processes, I don't see any 'hard problem' at all... only a lot of egotistical misunderstanding of the phenomenon at hand. Clearly, it is the physical which gives rise to that which we call the 'mental' - after all, look at the history of the Earth. Tell me which had to come first: the physical world, or the mental processes of its life forms? And so it appears, throughout the Universe, that mental states are not needed at all for physical things to appear - only for sentient beings to perceive and comprehend those physical states.And do you realize that only consciousness is capable of recognizing consciousness? So how is it that by any physical means can you determine consciousness has been destroyed? Not without a conscious entity to observe that it's no longer observable. And yet, does that mean it no longer exists? No, it simply means it is no longer observable. So, guess again ...


DS, I suspect that, to some degree, you are another Humanicentrist who feels that the mental states of Man must have signifigance beyond the cut-and-dry physical reality that they appear to have. So how do you reconcile this concept with the theory - for I will agree, to call it otherwise is foolish - that the Universe of physical things is VASTLY older than any beings with mental awareness? Yes, and if you look at the "concrete" reality which man has created for himself, it's clearly evident that the concrete does in fact proceed from "the abstract." Hence without "a mind," there would be nothing to "witness," at least in the case with man.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Fetish for sentience? If I wear a shirt designed for a woman once, in all my life, does that give me a fetish for transvestitism? Nay, silly noogle, the fact that we, so far, have evidence of only a single planet with any form of supposedly sentient life shows entirely that sentience, as such, is an anomaly. The universe, as a whole, is destructive to such sentience.

Now, are you saying that fetishes are abstract, or that sentience is abstract? And do you understand what 'abstract' actually means, or did you get that word in your Word-A-Day email too?

Abstract, FYI, is a concept which is not associated with any specific thing or idea. Sentience is clearly not abstract, but the term 'fetish', in itself, is abstract, until a specific fetish is mentioned.

You and lifegazer both have a problem using that term. By fetish I mean a particular design or purpose, and by sentience I mean that which is abstract, as it entails that which is wholly perceived.

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
By fetish I mean a particular design or purpose, and by sentience I mean that which is abstract, as it entails that which is wholly perceived.

Ah - redefining words again. I see.

You know, prior to each post, you need to post relevant excerpts from Iacchus' Redefined Dictionary of English Terms, so that the rest of us know you're not really talking about fetish, sentience, abstraction, etc.

As to your other responses - You need your medication. Your brain seems to be in lower gear than normal. Yes, clearly, it takes someone able to recognize consciousness in order to recognize consciousness - Just like it takes eyes capable of seeing red to see red. Duh! But that doesn't mean that an observer is required for the other to exist, period.

Besides, show me one conscious entity or state that does not have ANY physical correlates to generate/BE that consciousness. Just one. Anywhere.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Besides, show me one conscious entity or state that does not have ANY physical correlates to generate/BE that consciousness. Just one. Anywhere.


The physical univserse

[Z]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
The physical univserse

Please show your evidence that the physical universe is a conscious entity. Thank you.

And then, when you're done with that, demonstrate how the physical universe is conscious without any physical correlates.

Then we'll head off to Stockholm so you can claim your Nobel Prize.

[metacristi]

Iacchus

And where would this total complexity exist, if not through some abstract, omniscient, all-powerful state of essence or being?

Well since Copernicus, Galileo and Newton the teleological approach (that everything has its goal, an end) has lost its previous prominence (based on Aristotelian philosophy) because it proved to be stagnant. We do not have yet the right to consider it falsified but the reality is that now the first choice programm, in science at least, is naturalism. What rationally entitle us to pursue this path as the first choice programm is its fecundity, the naturalistic approach is still progressive. Of course the mere fact that God does not play any fecund role in our current scientific theories is not enough finally to justify the way stronger stance that naturalism is true. So your questions are perfectly meaningful, philosophically they are very interesting, but only as much as no claim of epistemological privilege is made. Indeed we might be living for example in the Berkeleyan 'Mind of God' without being aware of that (and in spite of all 'evidence'). Unfortunately the problem is that there is not enough justification to prefer this hypothesis as the first choice programm. Not yet at least.

[Z]

... That was on the tip of my tongue, Meta...

:D

Well-said! Well-said!! And quite diplomatic, as well.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Please show your evidence that the physical universe is a conscious entity. Thank you.

Not evidence as such. It would just be a logical conclusion that follows from the assumptions of a mental monist philosophy. Since all physical things are experiential then it follows that the physical univserse is experiential.


And then, when you're done with that, demonstrate how the physical universe is conscious without any physical correlates.


The experiential "physical" aspects of reality would not have physical correlates because they are physical themselves. So your question only has an answer if you adopt the mental philosophy.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Ah - redefining words again. I see.

You know, prior to each post, you need to post relevant excerpts from Iacchus' Redefined Dictionary of English Terms, so that the rest of us know you're not really talking about fetish, sentience, abstraction, etc. Oh, the last thing I would have you do is "struggle" with what I have to say. A fetish is simply to have an aim or design (via one's intent) on something.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by metacristi
Iacchus

Well since Copernicus, Galileo and Newton the teleological approach (that everything has its goal, an end) has lost its previous prominence (based on Aristotelian philosophy) because it proved to be stagnant. We do not have yet the right to consider it falsified but the reality is that now the first choice programm, in science at least, is naturalism. What rationally entitle us to pursue this path as the first choice programm is its fecundity, the naturalistic approach is still progressive. Of course the mere fact that God does not play any fecund role in our current scientific theories is not enough finally to justify the way stronger stance that naturalism is true. Yes, the natural world does exist but, it is only a "subset" of the spiritual.


So your questions are perfectly meaningful, philosophically they are very interesting, but only as much as no claim of epistemological privilege is made. Indeed we might be living for example in the Berkeleyan 'Mind of God' without being aware of that (and in spite of all 'evidence'). Unfortunately the problem is that there is not enough justification to prefer this hypothesis as the first choice programm. Not yet at least. By the way, did radio waves have an impact on reality before or after we discovered them?

[metacristi]

Yes, the natural world does exist but, it is only a "subset" of the spiritual.

The form in which you put the statement is a perfect example of an epistemological claim, the mistake of many supporters of idealism. Unfortunately for them we do not even have sufficient justification to grant it a fallible epistemological privilege (or your statement implies much more, that idealism, the ontological brand in your case, is true).

So I do not advise any of them to pursue this path of open claims (rather they should concentrate on showing that realism and atheism are not at all required with necessity by observed facts and that science is not infallible-as too many believe here).

Indeed the mere fact that our subjective experiences seem to be private does not exclude the possibility of reductionism and so far we just have more justification for a 'weak' realist stance. Science might not be infallible but is, still, our best method to make sense of the observed realities.

This in no way means that idealism cannot be correct in absolute but in absence of sufficient justification there is no good reason currently to grant it a fallible epistemological privilege (or, stronger, to believe that it is true). At most you are justified to be skeptical of realism, even to believe in idealism, but only as a purely subjective stance. What you do (and others here) is preaching idealism, requesting also that all rational people do the same. A wrong approach as there is not yet sufficient justification for that.


By the way, did radio waves have an impact on reality before or after we discovered them?

I don't think this can enhance the chances of ontological idealism of being true, as in the case with the tree falling in the wood there is a perfectly coherent realist explanation (in the latter case the sound of the impact does exist no matter whether there is someone to hear it). No need to 'tack' also a Mind in our scientific theories. Not yet at least.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by metacristi

The form in which you put the statement is a perfect example of an epistemological claim, the mistake of many supporters of idealism. Unfortunately for them we do not even have sufficient justification to grant it a fallible epistemological privilege (or your statement implies much more, that idealism, the ontological brand in your case, is true). And yet in no way am I denying the natural world exists. I'm just saying there's "something" more to it than that.


So I do not advise any of them to pursue this path of open claims (rather they should concentrate on showing that realism and atheism are not at all required with necessity by observed facts and that science is not infallible-as too many believe here).Yes, but were radio waves required for the understanding of our Universe before we discovered them? No. So what does that suggest about the inclusion (or not) of something we don't understand? Indeed, that there could very well be a fundamental property out there, such as God, that truly does exist.


Indeed the mere fact that our subjective experiences seem to be private does not exclude the possibility of reductionism and so far we just have more justification for a 'weak' realist stance. Science might not be infallible but is, still, our best method to make sense of the observed realities. In terms of the natural world, yes ... but, in terms of the abstract reality of the mind? No.


This in no way means that idealism cannot be correct in absolute but in absence of sufficient justification there is no good reason currently to grant it a fallible epistemological privilege (or, stronger, to believe that it is true). At most you are justified to be skeptical of realism, even to believe in idealism, but only as a purely subjective stance. What you do (and others here) is preaching idealism, requesting also that all rational people do the same. A wrong approach as there is not yet sufficient justification for that.We are still subject, however, to the reality which is provided to us by means of our minds. Without an internal world/reality, there would be no means of perceiving an external world/reality.


I don't think this can enhance the chances of ontological idealism of being true, as in the case with the tree falling in the wood there is a perfectly coherent realist explanation (in the latter case the sound of the impact does exist no matter whether there is someone to hear it). No need to 'tack' also a Mind in our scientific theories. Not yet at least. Yes, but what exactly did radio waves have to do with anything until we discovered them? Yet come to find out it's a very significant aspect in how the world is made up.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, the natural world does exist but, it is only a "subset" of the spiritual


Originally posted by metacristi
The form in which you put the statement is a perfect example of an epistemological claim, the mistake of many supporters of idealism.



How is the statement an epistemological claim?

It seems to me that it is a non-empirical epistemological claim. Perhaps one that seeks knowledge through reasoning alone rather than relying on sensory observation. If one is an idealist, would a fallible epistemological privilage be granted through a non-empirical route to knowledge?