Troy Davis
About Me
0
ShoeUnited Wrote:
"...most Christian philosophies..." That's the crux right there.
"...most Christian philosophies..." That's the crux right there.
By Christian philosophies, I only mean philosophies held by Christians. There are secular dualists out there as well (epiphenomenalists being the prime examples). How was THIS the crux?
Important Edit: Many people think philosophy and Christian philosophy are two separate fields. This is only true in book marketing. The actual academic realm of philosophy is very evenly spread in terms of theism, atheism, and skepticism. Atheism did dominate in the middle of the twentieth century, but that was mostly because a theory called logical positivism became immensely popular in the wake of Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger. However, that theory is falling towards extinction.
ShoeUnited Wrote:
I'm not saying a soul exists. I personally don't believe in one. My statement was regarded as a supposition that the scenario presented were true. If it's a matter of chemicals firing that creates the soul then the cessation of chemicals firing equates the cessation of the soul. As far as I can see or measure. If you can provide evidence to show it continues afterwards, I'd be happy to look at the data. This is a matter of causality. I apologize for assuming everyone was thinking the same as I do. I hope that provides clarity.
I'm not saying a soul exists. I personally don't believe in one. My statement was regarded as a supposition that the scenario presented were true. If it's a matter of chemicals firing that creates the soul then the cessation of chemicals firing equates the cessation of the soul. As far as I can see or measure. If you can provide evidence to show it continues afterwards, I'd be happy to look at the data. This is a matter of causality. I apologize for assuming everyone was thinking the same as I do. I hope that provides clarity.
A lot of this is addressed below, but it's important to note that the soul pre-exists the body in Christian theology. It chronologically exists before the body. It isn't a product of chemical processes. That said, they are causally related to an extent. The body can cause mental states in the soul and the soul can create mechanical functions in the body and so on.
I'm not stating an argument yet. Just clarifying definitions.
ShoeUnited Wrote:
I hope you indulge me for cutting for brevity. You mistake the point I raised here and confuse what I meant. Which is fine, I was not being clear. That's my fault. I love robots and I will be happy to use yours as an example.
I create a robot. It is very sophisticated. I learn how to program it and make it pass a Turing test. As far as can be seen to the independent observer, this robot acts like a human. I go so far as to write subroutines that make it believe that it is both independent and alive. I then change out whatever power source with that of one that can digest plant and animal matter similar to that of humans. I write open ended programs for it to learn and develop and to change itself based on its environment. (A nose to smell, a tongue to taste).
I hope you indulge me for cutting for brevity. You mistake the point I raised here and confuse what I meant. Which is fine, I was not being clear. That's my fault. I love robots and I will be happy to use yours as an example.
I create a robot. It is very sophisticated. I learn how to program it and make it pass a Turing test. As far as can be seen to the independent observer, this robot acts like a human. I go so far as to write subroutines that make it believe that it is both independent and alive. I then change out whatever power source with that of one that can digest plant and animal matter similar to that of humans. I write open ended programs for it to learn and develop and to change itself based on its environment. (A nose to smell, a tongue to taste).
There's no evidence the robot is aware. It has all the functions we associate with humans, but until one can demonstrate that its reactions are based in thoughts and feelings and not just programmed responses, then this robot is still nowhere near being comparable to a vital human
That said, you could say the same things about me. How do you know I'm actually aware and not just a set of biologically programmed responses? You don't know. No one except myself can observe my own consciousness... and that is a huge a problem for the materialist philosophy of mind.
ShoeUnited Wrote:
Think of the child in AI that did not know it was not human -if a reader needs an analogous example-. How do you tell advanced chemical processes or programming from that of a "mind"? It is a question that plagues philosophy, science, and religion so I don't claim to have the answer.
Think of the child in AI that did not know it was not human -if a reader needs an analogous example-. How do you tell advanced chemical processes or programming from that of a "mind"? It is a question that plagues philosophy, science, and religion so I don't claim to have the answer.
But the child could still "think." He still had feelings and thoughts even though he lacked conceptual understandings. He wasn't just a set of advanced functions, which is all a computer is.
To answer your question, you can't, and that begs another question: if human consciousness is material in nature, why are we unable to directly observe it? Humans can only encounter other minds via inference. I know I have a mind; I can vocalize intelligent thoughts; the person next to me can vocalize intelligent thoughts; that person must have a mind too.
During the latter half of the twentieth century when philosophy started to take a backseat to science, the materialist philosophy of mind got away with murder. People just started to take for granted that the mind and the brain shared numerical identity.
ShoeUnited Wrote:
But what I can recognize and know is that if I turn this machine off, its thoughts cease.
But what I can recognize and know is that if I turn this machine off, its thoughts cease.
No, you recognize that its functions cease. You still have no knowledge of whether this creation is capable of thought.
ShoeUnited Wrote:
Its function as a mind stops. The programming or chemicals are still there. Still in that state. But the function of "I am." is no more.
Its function as a mind stops. The programming or chemicals are still there. Still in that state. But the function of "I am." is no more.
Again, the idea that this thing is aware is still a presupposition on our part. We believe that because our body structures are highly sophisticated and that we exercise awareness, we assume that anything that shares equal sophistication will also be aware. Even if the assumption is true, it is no less an assumption.
ShoeUnited Wrote:
If I go and I change by accident or purpose, the chemicals or programming within the creation I do change its mind. If I hit it over the head and it is still able to function, it may function differently. It is not a different thing other than a mind. It may become crazy. It may become autistic. But it is still functioning.
If I go and I change by accident or purpose, the chemicals or programming within the creation I do change its mind. If I hit it over the head and it is still able to function, it may function differently. It is not a different thing other than a mind. It may become crazy. It may become autistic. But it is still functioning.
It's the same epistemological question as earlier. You're still just observing utility. You don't actually know yet whether this thing experiences the same phenomena as humans do.
ShoeUnited Wrote:
We already have a word for those chemicals processes that occur within our brains that we call a mind. We call it "mind".
We already have a word for those chemicals processes that occur within our brains that we call a mind. We call it "mind".
This definition of the mind leads to absurdities. First off, it implies the mind is composite. Not only is that claim incoherent with human experience, but it implies that the chemicals are the object of all the mind's experiences, and that just ain't true. When light reflects off a tree and hits my eyes and then sends my brain data, the chemicals aren't the objects of the image; as a matter of fact, it is the chemicals that synthesize the image.
And as we established earlier, the cause and effect cannot be the same thing. That image cannot share identity with those chemicals if the image was created by the chemicals. This isn't even regarding the mind yet. We're just talking about basic feelings and perceptions. The same principles apply to the mind, though. And if the mind is composite, there's the problem of essential and non-essential chemicals and processes (if I had more time, I'd elaborate on this a bit more).
The second problem is that if my mind is purely material, then my identity is bound strictly to that material. Problem: my brain matter is not made of the same material it was made of 15 years ago. Am I not the same person I was fifteen years ago? If that's true, then the whole idea of a life sentence in prison is absurd, as the the convicted criminals are technically not guilty of their previous crimes after their brain matter undergoes a complete material shift.
Furthermore, the materialist philosophy of mind is incompatible with free will. If I am nothing more than chemical and physical matter, then I am a slave to my body's metabolic processes, which are dictated by purely natural agents.
Finally, the materialist philosophy of mind straight-up violates rules of empiricism. If you say a mind is nothing more than chemicals, why is it impossible to observe the existence of a mind purely by observation of those chemicals? Two men are lying down next to each other 50 yards away. One is dead. The other is sleeping. Which one's which?
Without inference, it is impossible to answer that question. People simply cannot encounter other minds without inference. That restriction doesn't applying to ANYTHING else in the material realm, and yet we make the mind this royal exception. The materialist needs to explain this exception, or the material philosophy of mind is a lost cause.
ShoeUnited Wrote:
Whenever people start making absolute claims about things they don't believe exist, everyone else ought to get suspicious. Also known as: Shoe I think you've gone off the rails and are starting to sound retarded. Fair enough. lol I know that may not be what you mean, but it'd be certainly well within your right to say so.
Whenever people start making absolute claims about things they don't believe exist, everyone else ought to get suspicious. Also known as: Shoe I think you've gone off the rails and are starting to sound retarded. Fair enough. lol I know that may not be what you mean, but it'd be certainly well within your right to say so.
Well, not you. I was implying that about the website. What you stated in the quote below is not what was stated by Iron Chariots. You're saying there's insufficient evidence for material/immaterial interaction. They were saying immaterial entities contain the property of being unable to interact with physical beings.
ShoeUnited Wrote:
This one is the easiest to address. Immaterial, as was accepted as far as I could see nobody arguing about anyway, means not consisting of matter or energy. Material things -meaning consisting of matter or energy- can be measured. Material things interact with the environment physically. They can be weighed, measured, so on. I then extend logically and inversely -until data is provided to the contrary- that something that is affected physically was affected by a material thing. And if a thing such as a soul is affecting material things it must have a material property. And if it has material properties it can be measured. Thus it is material.
If an immaterial object interacts with the environment, I'd like to see some data on that.
This one is the easiest to address. Immaterial, as was accepted as far as I could see nobody arguing about anyway, means not consisting of matter or energy. Material things -meaning consisting of matter or energy- can be measured. Material things interact with the environment physically. They can be weighed, measured, so on. I then extend logically and inversely -until data is provided to the contrary- that something that is affected physically was affected by a material thing. And if a thing such as a soul is affecting material things it must have a material property. And if it has material properties it can be measured. Thus it is material.
If an immaterial object interacts with the environment, I'd like to see some data on that.
And once you demonstrate that the mind is immaterial, this ceases to be a problem.
ShoeUnited Wrote:
I'm not going to guess what Iron Chariot means to you, though I can guess whom is meant by context. I will however give others some background on the significance of iron chariots.
Judges - 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Judges - 4:3 And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
Judges - 4:13 And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.
Iron Chariots is a term used by atheists to derisively clarify that they are impervious to God's magic. Just like in the bible. (That's god with a capital G) The use of it by someone else puts their statement into question and raises up whole other theological rhetoric that really isn't worth fighting about.
I hope I clarified what I left murky as a swamp before.
I'm not going to guess what Iron Chariot means to you, though I can guess whom is meant by context. I will however give others some background on the significance of iron chariots.
Judges - 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Judges - 4:3 And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
Judges - 4:13 And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.
Iron Chariots is a term used by atheists to derisively clarify that they are impervious to God's magic. Just like in the bible. (That's god with a capital G) The use of it by someone else puts their statement into question and raises up whole other theological rhetoric that really isn't worth fighting about.
I hope I clarified what I left murky as a swamp before.
I don't argue scriptural authenticity/interpretation unless the person I'm arguing with already accepts theism on some level. The reason is because even if I demonstrate my interpretation is more so correct, I can't show why it's plausible without the God premise. If you wish to promote religious values and doctrine, it is best to use philosophy as a starting point.
But I do contend that Iron Chariots philosophical assertions on the soul are disgustingly simplistic.
© 1998-2025 Shadow Knight Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Mortal Kombat, the dragon logo and all character names are trademarks and copyright of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.