I disagree with most, if not all, of this. I don’t understand where the “god” is hiding or what kind if appeal you’re making about subjectivity being separate from the brain - you’d have to give an example of human that is conscious and doesn’t possess a brain of any kind.

Also, applying logical propositions to proposed empirical phenomenon (first and last cause) is a fallacy from the get go. Not to mention how you’re making an appeal to a teleological view without any apparent justification for doing so or of the context in which you’re doing so.

If I am to be generous then I will take the teleological position set out as being about the apparent function of some given phenomenon. The function of the brain is to process sensible data; the empirical evidence for this is quote overwhelming I feel - it is factual. When it comes to first and last causes on a universal scale (cosmological scale) there is only evidence based on physics and various models of the universe known by way of applying entropic principles. On a smaller scale I had a beginning and I will have an end. I would not say that the purpose of my beginning is my end, but it wouldn’t be very difficult to argue that the purpose of living is to die given that this is apparent for every thing we observe - that is a trite response though.

“Emergence” appears to me to be a term put as a place holder to deal with entropy - which we can only tag not understand directly.

I think that the religious definition is the only reasonable definition.

I think that it’s quite clear that one cannot will to move their arm without firstly determining the final cause, or rather, the reason for moving their arm prior to moving it. if I want to pick up a cup and I’m sitting silently at my desk, before I move to pick up a cup, I must first will to pick up the cup; in which case the final cause (picking up the cup) is determined prior to and is therefore conceptually contained within its first cause (the will).

now, if one is to say that their urge to pick up the cup is born out of a prior cause, they would be watching the process happening from a third person perspective and could have no control over whether they picked it up or not; yet that’s not what we see; our will to not will to pick up the cup guarantees our freedom; If our wills were predetermined, we would be passive watchers of the process and not the sole active agent of the process. this notion is also defeated by the fact that silence in mind exists, for if the mind were a mere link in the chain of causation, one thought would cause another ad infinitum and silence of mind could not exist. also, the fact that I can change my context in thought entirely to a disjunctive set (from thinking up drinking from my cup to complete silence) and all causal chains are necessarily contained within and related by a holarchy, guarantees that my will is free; if my will were not free, I could not break free in mind from the holarchy of causation. there are many other reasons to believe the that the will is a first cause, and not a material cause.

Note: Just read this back. I don’t tend to proof read and can see this is perhaps too obtuse in places - it is not exactly an easy topic though in my defense.

We know, for a fact, that we’re a collection of non-conscious (meaning instinctive in this case) apparatus. For example if you put someone with Parkinson’s Disease on a bicycle, who can barely walk, they will ride around with no problem at all - or people with spinal injuries will walk if placed on a treadmill (but not “consciously” in control).

This can be seen by how brains function on a neurological level (an area that can give greater understanding even if it cannot explain everything sufficiently). The mid-brain, or more primal brain, being a set of instinctual drives is inhibited by the cortex - in this sense we do consciously “choose” not to pick up the cup, but the drive is not consciously driven; this is quite a complicated network which basically shows us we’re able to consciously recondition ourselves to act out in some desired manner - desire is judged against the experiential outcomes.

In short there is constant conflict and contradiction within everyone. This “inner happening” presents itself in many ways. I don’t find any appeal to some “non-material” as important here because we may as well say these words are “non-material” yet we know the represent the auditory manifestation of inner drives restricted, and reconstituted, by what you call “will”. In a more mystical language that may appeal to you I like Eliade’s concept of “Hierophany” to be applied here - meaning our sensibility is in commune with our preset, yet flexible, instinctual drives. In which sense we’re constantly rethinking our subjective “purpose” and that the “purpose” is merely a symbolic way in which we frame the manifestation of “Hierophany” (the ‘communal space’ between what we do and what is happening).

What intrigued me is the sense of agency we have where there is none or little actually “willing” going on. There are plenty of studies showing how we’re ready to claim responsibility for actions we deem positive yet we’re also ready to refuse responsibility when the outcome is deemed negative - I believe this is a telling sign of the concept “Hierophany” if ever there was one.

More simply put I would call our “purpose” to be the apparent shape of the space between what we’re chemically driven to do in order to continue existing and what sensibility tells us is best in the here and now - the kind of beings we are allows us to be what we call “conscious” (I would say) because we are extended across time; there being no actual “moment” or rather what we call a “moment” is a stretching out across temporal appreciation with no regard for a physical temporal centre. That is not to say we’re not inclined to think of being “at-the-centre” just that this could well be a matter of applying a successful method of understanding sensibility to something constituted to act upon sensible information.

If we venture into such atomization though the perspective of what we call “sensibility” shifts beyond our immediate ken. There is a limit to every line of enquiry, but that doesn’t make every line of enquiry useless, but it certainly brings into deep suspicion any claims one may make about “universality” or something as “absolute” beyond a limited scope of a specified enquiry.

We’re inclined to overreach and such overreaching has led is to unearth what would previously have been regarded as inconsequential or plain ridiculous. Some people swim in the ridiculous and bring back good news. Most are just necessary fodder for the development if the human condition with its sciences and capacities.

Any talk of “deities” for me is just a hasty attempt to dispose of responsibility - it is a rather plain field of play in which to distance oneself from the culpability of sensible experience and the stupidity and ignorance if the human condition which necessarily “wills” itself to believe when things go ‘good’ they had a hand in it, and when things go ‘bad’ they didn’t (this is simply manifested in a narrative of heaven and hell in order to order ourselves in a manner so as not to go completely insane under the burden of facts and the burden of irreducible truths that have only a bounded appeal of which we’re constantly deluding ourselves into thinking we “know” when it is the “not knowing” that is of greater consequence to how we live out our lives (meaningfully constituted by our sense of “self” or dictated by some oversimplified “wisdom” so as to merely ‘feel good’ rather than face the raw insanity of our being.)

In short, I guess that is my “religious” view and part of what I think about the concept, and ‘misconception’ of the concept of ‘god’. There is something to the concept, yet I think it’s become more of an appeal to sensibility only, or instinct only, rather than act as a bridge between these (as Hierophant).

Oh! I should add that outside of what is “practical” I find the use of the term “purpose” either duplicitous or vague.

The function of the brain is to process sensible data; the empirical evidence for this is quote overwhelming I feel - it is factual. — I like sushi

That is one function of the brain. What about its other functions?

I somewhat agree that "final cause" connotes teleology, and teleology connotes intentionality. However, I see no reason to think there is any reason to believe there are final causes. The forms that exist in our universe are products of entropy: the evolution from low to high entropy is uneven, and this causes complexity to form. No form is actually in a final state. Is the heat death of the universe the end state (final cause)?

Intentionality is an aspect of consciousness. We indeed engage in intentional behavior, but the presence of this aspect of conscious creatures does not imply all physical activity in the universe is a product of intentionality.

In terms of “purpose” - external - there is no other function. If the brain didn’t process input from the outside world it would be no different to a rock.

subjectivity is transcendent of the brain — TheGreatArcanum

That's an unsupported claim.

your Will has a final cause and therefore a first cause; when each person is born, their potential to die is contained within themselves as well; and also, one’s potential to live is contained within their potential to die; so life itself involves a first and final cause. if you are to say that our coming into being does not involve a first cause; you must say that our existence is a result of a set of material causes that extend backwards into indefinitely into time, and that that set of causes end with our death and that an infinite number of material causes happened only so that one person could be a live for just a blink of the eye of eternity.

maybe you don’t understand the definition of support. maybe we should break down the term as per usual and never get past the pitfalls of language like usual? or maybe you can stop responding to my posts because not once have you said anything of value.

instinctual drives — I like sushi

the instinctual drive presents itself to my conscious mind; I make a decision as to whether I give into t or not; sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. If I did not have freedom of will, I would be bound by my instinctual will, not alas, I am not, so I must, in he limited sense of the word, free.

maybe you don’t understand the definition of support. — TheGreatArcanum

Maybe not. What was supposed to be the support for it?

Every indication is that it is impossible to determine if at least one GOD exists...using logic, reason, science, or math.

It appears it just cannot be done.

It also appears it is impossible to determine if it is more likely that there is at least one GOD...than that there are none.

It seems just as impossible to determine if NO gods exist...using logic, reason, science, or math.

And finally, it also appears impossible to determine if it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one using logic, reason, science, or math.

As I see it...the best one can do is to make a guess in either direction...or to decline to guess.

I suggest the world would be a better, safer, more respectful place if everyone who wants to chime in on the issue simply said:

"It is my guess that a GOD exists...or at very least that it is more likely that one exists than that no gods do. THAT IS MY GUESS"

Or "it is my guess that no gods exist...or at very least that it is more likely that none exist than that at least one does. THAT IS MY GUESS.

Or...I have no idea if any gods exist or not...and I just do not want to make a guess.

i’m not sure what you mean by “support?” which definition are you using? and when you give me the one you mean, all of those words are going to have to be defined for us to understand what you mean by support, so we can never truly define it because the chain of definitions needed to define the word “support” is too long.

Every indication is that it is impossible to determine if at least one GOD exists...using logic, reason, science, or math.

It appears it just cannot be done. — Frank Apisa

why would you think that?

— TheGreatArcanum

Why on Earth would you not?

The finest minds that have ever lived on this planet have tried...and come up VERY short.

But...give it a shot if you think you can do it.

Use logic, reason, science or math to establish that it is more likely that at least one GOD exists than that none exist.

But...give it a shot if you think you can do it. — Frank Apisa

already done it. I’ve established 10 principles of ontology/epistemology and 17 first principles of philosophy. In two years, without a college degree, I’ve done what no philosopher before me has ever done.

already done it. I’ve established 10 principles of ontology/epistemology and 17 first principles of philosophy. In two years, without a college degree, I’ve done what no philosopher before me has ever done. — TheGreatArcanum

And perhaps a degree in philosophy would allow you to see how little you have actually accomplished. If you were the mystic you imagine yourself to be you would eschew attempts at establishing first principles.

TheGreatArcanum
138

But...give it a shot if you think you can do it. — Frank Apisa


already done it. I’ve established 10 principles of ontology/epistemology and 17 first principles of philosophy. In two years, without a college degree, I’ve done what no philosopher before me has ever done. — TheGreatArcanum

That's cute.

But...I'll go with Fooloso4 replied.

can you please tell me when the concept of non-existence came into being?

i’m not sure what you mean by “support?” — TheGreatArcanum

Then how can you make a comment about whether I understand the definition of support?

TheGreatArcanum
139
↪Frank Apisa
↪Fooloso4
can you please tell me when the concept of non-existence came into being? — TheGreatArcanum

Stop being cute.

You are not going to "lay a trap these fools will fall into."

Say what you mean to say...don't ask a question leading to saying it in retort.

This could prove interesting. You may have something I've not encountered before.

I seriously doubt it...but I'm willing to keep an open mind/

Stop being cute.

You are not going to "lay a trap these fools will fall into."

Say what you mean to say...don't ask a question leading to saying it in retort.

This could prove interesting. You may have something I've not encountered before.

I seriously doubt it...but I'm willing to keep an open mind/ — Frank Apisa

you already exposed yourselves as fools when you failed to understand the ramifications of my OP. Since nobody seems to think that there is any "evidence" or reason to believe that final causes even exist, I'm trying to spark your intellects by forcing you to think about the concept of non-existence and how it came to be. did it come to be after the concept of existence came to be, or before? Is it a concept or is it a concrete 'thing'?

you already exposed yourselves as fools when you failed to understand the ramifications of my OP. Since nobody seems to belief that there is any "evidence" or reason to believe that final causes even exist, I'm trying to spark your intellects by forcing you to think about the concept of non-existence and how it came to be? did it come to be after the concept of existence came to be, or before? Is it a concept or is it a concrete 'thing'? — TheGreatArcanum

As I said...if you have something to say...say it.

Stop with the questions. You are not going to ensnare anyone in a trap.

And lose the grandiosity. You wear it like a wet beaver coat.

As I said...if you have something to say...say it. — Frank Apisa

in time, young padwan, in time.

My favorite part of the Gospels is where Jesus lays a logically airtight argument for the existence of God on a crowd of thousands. Then he fed them all with just a pie chart and two syllogisms. Many were converted that day.

Will has a final cause and therefore a first cause; when each person is born, their potential to die is contained within themselves as well; and also, one’s potential to live is contained within their potential to die; so life itself involves a first and final cause. — TheGreatArcanum

Two problems with this:
1) You are assuming there exist final causes, and then accounting for "will" with that paradigm. This does not establish it.
2) Physicalism is possibly true. If so, then the matter composing the body is just temporarily in the form of a body - so there is no "final" configuration of this matter.

if you are to say that our coming into being does not involve a first cause; you must say that our existence is a result of a set of material causes that extend backwards into indefinitely into time,
and that that set of causes end with our death and that an infinite number of material causes happened only so that one person could be a live for just a blink of the eye of eternity.

I haven't said that the universe's existence implies no first cause. If the past is finite, it implies there was an initial state. The past existence of an initial state does not entail intentionality. Your assertion, " so that one person could be a live for just a blink of the eye of eternity" assumes intentionality.

Are you just asserting that this Aristotelian 4-cause paradigm is coherent, or are you claiming there's a compelling case to believe its true? I believe it may be coherent, but it's far from compelling.

1) You are assuming there exist final causes, and then accounting for "will" with that paradigm. This does not establish it. — Relativist

like I said, when we act, our reason for acting (final cause) is determined prior to or at the time of our will to act, its first cause. if our will to act were the product of previous material cause, it would be impossible for us to have knowledge of the reason for our actions, because if it were the case that the will is a material cause and not a first cause, it wouldn’t have come into being yet; that is to say that we wouldn’t have come to know of it until AFTER the action was carried out. Our knowledge of the reason for our action would then be an inference and not a deduction.

If one final cause exists, and pertinently, it does, and the nature of our will guarantees it, there must have been a first cause in the absolute sense as well, because final causes would be impossible if there were only material causes; that is to say that a final cause cannot come into being inbetween two material causes in a chain of infinite material causes.

Physicalism is possibly true. — Relativist

so physicalism cannot be true. In fact, it’s beyond absurd.

intentionality, by definition, is determining the final cause of an action at the time of or before instantiating from potentiality. so anywhere this is occurring, there is intentionality. when I say that the concept of non-existence is born with us, it must be so that the concept of non-existence came into being prior to existence; and since non-existence is not in the absolute sense, it must be nothing but a concept in mind, and therefore mind must precede the existence of matter.

so physicalism cannot be true. In fact, it’s beyond absurd. — TheGreatArcanum

You"re going to need more than this:

1. If Physicalism then not(teleology)
2. Teleology
3. Therefore not(physicalism)

Physicalism needn't even be true. If the universe evolves deterministically (which seems likely)
there is no "final cause". You're left with accounting for mental activity this way. But mental activity can be accounted for in other ways, so you don't really have a case at all. All you can do is to propose your view as a metaphysical system that is possibly true. Is that all you're after? Anything more is futile.

to solve the unsolved questions about the nature of existence, one must first ascertain the essence of the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, that is, the set of all contingent things. to do this, one must relate ontology and set theory, or rather, the notion of precedence and set containment or non-containment. by doing this, one can establish a set of principles of epistemology and ontology and determine the nature of the set of all sets. to do this, we must start with the relationship between the object and the subject, is the subject contained within the object, the object within the subject or are they mutually exclusive? I call the "hard problem of consciousness" the "retard problem of consciousness" because, in order to make the world "real" and "concrete" the physicalist begins his philosophy with the absurd notion that objects are not contained within subjects. In understanding that all objects are contained within the mind, all the answers fall into place.