No some parts of consciousness may be non-reductive to their physical counterparts or be entirely different substances (or have different ontological grounding, sufficient reasoning, intrinsic properties, etc). Metaphysical attributes of god? What attributes, maybe you could DEFINE IT. — substantivalism
Both. — substantivalism
Then it isn't physicalism it's panpscychism. Also, define what physicalism is. — substantivalism
I'm actually an ignostic in this discussion now because you haven't defined god. DEFINE GOD. — substantivalism
Something can't come from nothing therefore there was always something. — substantivalism
Does it exist in reality and or is an activity executed by entities that exist? Then it's STUDIED by metaphysicians/physicists. It isn't just metaphysical? — substantivalism
Not every feature of an animals growth of evolution has to 100% always benefit it. There are little biological advantages to your appendix and perhaps it once did have a use but now it doesn't. Still fully explained by evolution. Remember the critical thinking skills that lead to better survival given sedentary/agricultural life styles later gave rise to these thoughts not the other way around. Stop talking like a stereotypical creationist. — substantivalism
How would a person who desired to not live and made it their goal continue surviving? — substantivalism
Also it seems you still don't want to discuss substance metaphysics and would rather keep using a discipline to talk about what ontological things exist? — substantivalism
1. Yes, let's investigate that with scientifc, mathematical, and metaphysical rigor. I never said it was both true and false at the same time I don't know whether it is true or false which isn't equivalent to the positive claim that it is true/false at the same time. This is a claim about my amount of knowledge required to answer the question. . . not an answer to the question.
2. Are asking about wonderment or how we build causal intuitions? Make up your mind and stop gish galloping.
3. Where does the knowledge exist? — substantivalism
How is instinct all that's needed for existence? — substantivalism
Here's the thing, people who exercise love and those that don't survive making them both fit for their environments. Cave men had no knowledge of calculus but survived and people today become experts in it but also survive so in both scenarios THEY WERE FIT FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENT. Natural selection isn't just bad evolved traits or good ones but also neutral traits that may or may not impact at some time your survival rate. So people without said traits would be said to perhaps evolve just as fit as those with them and good/bad traits could later serve no use. — substantivalism
Though, to survive in our concrete jungles today you are required to know these thing lest you not get the best jobs available, survival of the fittest at work again. — substantivalism
That would contradict what you said about the metaphysical will to live, no?
With respect to metaphysical attributes of God, sure the cosmological God is mathematically abstract, and the God of consciousness is both material and immaterial. Both of them share metaphysical features of existence. — 3017amen
I'm intrigued with psychology and cognitive science. What was it again you wish to explore there? I think you were asking about what modern medicine was required to help fight disease and so forth, so I'm not sure how that's germane. Nevertheless, would you care to talk about pathology and the human condition? Seems like that would relate more to the phenomena of human motivation(s). — 3017amen
A modern form of Materialism, correct? And your point? — 3017amen
Well, the Christian Bible is a history book. And in that book, God became man, who also had a conscious existence. Does that provide for your definition in real terms? — 3017amen
Are you sure there was always something? How so? — 3017amen
Exception taken as noted: It is both. If you wanted to discuss the Will (desire/goals/purpose) within the framework of cognition and cognitive science/psychology now would be a good time :snicker: — 3017amen
Forgive me, but that sounds like a politician pivoting. Otherwise, it still contradicts Darwinism. It still holds that there are no biological advantages to metaphysical features of conscious existence , some of which I already mentioned (mathematics, music, the Will, wonderment, Love, etc.). You can talk around it, but I suggest rather than deny it, acquiesce to its brute fact. Have you studied existentialism? (Of course you haven't, sorry.) — 3017amen
They wouldn't. But instinct would preclude it. Get it? — 3017amen
Sure. Consciousness exists, right? And your point? — 3017amen
1. Okay, so you are unsure. It proves another point about the mystery of your own existence.
2.Both.
3. In consciousness. Can you explain your consciousness? — 3017amen
Because lower life forms exist on instinct, emergence, etc. etc.. Not because they are self-aware Beings. — 3017amen
So are you saying metaphysical phenomena are not required for survival? If so, you need to explain why they exist. — 3017amen
That would not square with Darwinism. It does however square with post-modernism. And that would suggest subordination of the instinct toward rather the higher reaches of human nature and/or existential angst. And then in turn, leads to consciousness, self-awareness, metaphysics, purpose, will, love, phenomenology, etc. etc.. You know all that human condition kind of stuff :snicker: — 3017amen
One big issue here is that you must presuppose a god, then work backwards, only to arrive at post-hoc inferences, based on whatever position you hold for your specific god. — GTTRPNK
I need an external eye to look at how i'm going with this guy 3017amen. Would give me pointers on how i'm doing? — substantivalism
One big issue here is that you must presuppose a god, then work backwards, only to arrive at post-hoc inferences, based on whatever position you hold for your specific god.
3017amen is a tarbaby troll. I notice that somewhere above he calls the Bible a history book. Winning against such is not only not well-defined, it's not defined at all. Which may give some insight into religious massacres of the middle ages. The only thing to do with a tarbaby is to turn it loose and resolve not to be drawn into grabbing at it next time or any time. — tim wood
Timmy!
Not to digress too terribly on such a commentary of human nature, but I see a few ironies emerging here relative to that human condition, and the approach to challenging your (and perhaps other atheists) belief systems.
You mentioned history book. In that same history book, ad hominem is certainly nothing new under the sun (OT/wisdom books/Ecclesiastes). Meaning, in NT, as many of us know, the Scribes and Pharisees often felt uncomfortable (and threatened of course) for reasons we are all too familiar with. Sad, but worth noting in this case. Actually, it is quite existential if you care to ponder those implications.
The modern day observation from Einstein I could not agree more with. He correctly concluded that the atheist's "fanaticism"was alive and well. Again just something worth noting and/or being aware of... .
In my personal observation or experience, I do notice that during spirited debates about EOG, hiding behind ad hominem seems to be the rule rather than the exception. It may provide for a false sense of empowerment, not sure. In any case, fast-forwarding, that human dynamic usually translates into political pivoting first (avoiding answering tough questions), then when pressed or left without options, relegating the subject to either attacking the process or personal ad hominem.
But it's all good, like I say, nothing new under the sun there. — 3017amen
The modern day observation from Einstein I could not agree more with. He correctly concluded that the atheist's "fanaticism"was alive and well. Again just something worth noting and/or being aware of... . — 3017amen
Define god. Also, what do I believe in all knowing telepath? — substantivalism
Einstein's sentiment was roughly that a- and theist fanatics alike weren't his cup of tea. — jorndoe
Did we not cover this ground already? I'm not sure if you're on a fishing expedition or a witch hunt, but in any case let me be cordial and repeat: The cosmological God is that which is a mathematical and metaphysical abstract.
As it relates to our recent discussion about conscious existence, the ontological God is consciousness (via the Christian God/Jesus) which is once again, part of a metaphysical phenomena. — 3017amen
No exceptions taken. And your point? BTW, I hate to offer this observation or admonishment, but you had been sadly misguided about God not being inclusive of most philosophy, so you've got your work cut out for you to reestablish credibility... :snicker: In other words, what other fanatical misrepresentations are you willing to regurgitate? — 3017amen
Also stop using the word metaphysical as a representation of substances there already exist words for that it's a word that represents a discipline of study. You can study music in music theory but nothing is made of music theory. — substantivalism
Ontological god is consciousness" so you are not calling consciousness, consciousness, but calling it god. So you are playing a semantics game. — substantivalism
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies once wrote that metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and the purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order. The relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Some just truncate it by saying the nature of existence. — 3017amen
With respect to mind and matter, is music theory metaphysical? We've already ruled out that it's not required for Darwinian survival. So please share your thoughts :chin: — 3017amen
Think of it this way; red is red (God is red). Or alternatively, in cosmology, God is mathematics. — 3017amen
Not following you on that one. — 3017amen
Yes but it's not a substance it's a discipline of study. That may or may not include scientific methodology or the natural sciences which DEPEND on our personal or shared experiences for pragmatic value. — substantivalism
It may not be required for survival but this doesn't mean it couldn't have arisen by traits that were naturally selected including our ability to vocalize and communicate rather complex ideas to other members of our species. You only need to add in bits of creativity and formulate the same evolutionary helpful vocalizations into forms our ancestors or later viewed as appealing to their ears. Our parents needed to survive but not every single thing they thought, did, or performed needed to some how lead to their utmost survival or contribute to it only the net outcome of their choices needed lead to their survival. Also define what modern evolutionary theory is. You haven't shown to me that you understand evolutionary theory is so define it.
There is no such thing as macro versus micro evolution there is only evolution period. — substantivalism
You abuse peoples quotes and don't seem to justify it? :chin: — substantivalism
Yes, so if call a tree a truck then a truck is a tree and vice versa. Basically you are fucking language raw if I may put in less appealing or rather disgusting terminology. You're using linguistic shorthand to describe the same exact concepts using a new word and adding nothing to the discussion. — substantivalism
So consciousness (in part Metaphysics) is not real? — 3017amen
I'm at a loss over your point. How does that address the nature of music theory, and Darwinian survival value.? Again, is music theory metaphysical? — 3017amen
You're confusing a discussion I had with Jorndoe awhile back on another thread. You may want to bow out of the discussion there. — 3017amen
Oh you mean you mean you abused someone in other threads, the horror. — substantivalism
Really?
Tree=plant
Cosmological God=mathematics
Ontological God=the color red.
And your point?
Actually, with respect to Ontology/Epistemology and logic, I personally prefer my definition which is, God is a mottled color of red. Think of a red apple whose color from a distance appears red, but on closer examination is not red, but a mottled color of red. And so in logic, it becomes red and not red P and not-P (principle of Vagueness/Bivalence) which in turn transcends the laws of excluded middle. And so in Ontology, the analogy would be that your consciousness and subconsciousness working together also violates such formal laws of non-contradiction. Meaning, you yourself, and your conscious existence, are not purely of a logical nature. — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.