Here's a fourth piece of evidence that my mind is an immaterial soul. — Bartricks

1. If everything I think, desire and do is the causal product of prior causes and/or indeterministic chance, then I am not morally responsible for anything I think, desire and do.

True, and then, further, you were never responsible at any time for what you became, this being regardless of any religious, moral, court rules deeming you as responsible.

2. I am morally responsible for some of what I think, desire and do.

Not shown; you would have to undo (1) to the complete satisfaction to all.

3. Therefore (from 1 and 2), not everything I think, desire and do is the causal product of prior causes and/or indeterministic chance.

No more 'therefore'. Again, the means need to be provided, not just that it is felt.

4. If I am a material object, then everything I think, desire and do is the causal product of prior causes and/or indeterministic chance

True..

5. Therefore (from 3 and 4), I am not a material object

'Therefore' didn't follow.

If I am not a material object, then I must be an immaterial one, for that's the only alternative.

True, as kind of a ghost, soul mind in a realm distinct from the material that still talks the talk and walks the walk of the immaterial at every instant to communicate with it.

Should the mind be immaterial, what are the implications, if any?

I don't know what you're on about. I don't have a definition of free will. But I know I have it. — Bartricks

Well, then, could you freely state its opposite so we might get a hint of what it could be by some kind of contrast?

I don't offer a definition — Bartricks

I knew that.

The point, though, is that we can be sure we have it, even if we don't know exactly what it involves. — Bartricks

Compilation error… 'it': undefined reference.

You're not alone; no one has been able to define what else is outside of fixed will and random will.

'Free will', taken only as a stand alone, as something, independent of a definition, much like some do with 'Infinity' as being a completed amount or with 'Nothing' actually being, reduces to merely being something that sounds good to have, even over a fixed will that grants consistency and survival.

Our next step, then, should be to define it, so then we can know what we have and then what it implies. Shall we try?

('Infinite' and 'Nothing' can't even be meant, much less be.)

Bible Lessons Continue

(the previous was in another, similar thread.)

Were the Homo series of near-men and proto-humans merely a lucky result of the extinction of the dinosaurs and 95% of all species by asteroids or some such? Or did God send the asteroids? If He could send plagues of locusts then… why not! This is intelligent design at work.

For those who feel that evil sprits still tempt us into sin, we could say that the Devil’s method is to unbalance one’s brain chemicals. Not fair? Well, don’t expect ‘fair’ from a Devil. Religion can always adapt to new information, as it did with evolution and the asteroids above.

So, the infant species of Homo Sapiens continues forward, some ahead of their time and some way behind. It is not totally unexpected that many will arrive at evil, and that saying they shouldn’t won’t change this. Some will obsess on winning the Olympics or being great at something, doing little else along the way; some will go into depressions and do bad things; some will get so anxious that they will hit their children and spouses, and many will slip into the sit-com life of being selfish. This is human nature as it really is, fully intended, with no surprise. Casting out Angels, making Adam, sending Moses, restarting with Noah, and sending Jesus all did nothing because…?

Science, of course, continues inventing helpful things, schools continue new programs like Good For the Sake of Good (GSG), and putting drunk driver’s wrecked cars on the school lawn by the entrance, asking for compassion, and so forth, as in “Rachel’s challenge” and exposing bullying.

I suggest even more focus for the young and impressionable. There could be a class in which students daily log how their thinking out of consequences helped lessen their problems, or, when they merely reacted without thinking, how problems arose and bloomed out of control. Such thinking ahead might then become as routine as doing math calculations. Why not focus a lot on the actual living of life?

We have, perhaps, zillions of years to improve, which, at the current rate, may be necessary, for human nature is what it has become. It could very well go the other direction as well.

Overall to date, is the human race progressing? If not, why does the same evil stuff keep befalling it? Is the gene pool degrading? Why are the prisons full? Will drug-users, abusers, gamblers, sports nuts, gang members, workaholics, and all such (the list is too long) reproduce so much more of the same until goodness becomes a rarity?

Still, what an adventure it is to be alive at this time on this pale blue dot in the middle of nowhere between the eternities of forever was and will be…

no, not necessarily. — Bartricks

What would you say is the meaning of 'free' then?

For example, if I am free of information is my will freer as a result? — Bartricks

No. The less information the narrower and less useful the will.

But it does not tell us what free will involves. — Bartricks

I take it to mean that the will is free of something, maybe of some restriction, beyond the usual no coercion meaning.

So the argument is that the objective science - neuroscience being one - will always be deficient in respect of providing an account of the nature of experience. — Wayfarer

Yes, for the public account can't show the private experience, this ability appearing to be impossible.

We might work toward a consolation prize by trying to surround and coral experience to be in the brain, or at least get closer to this.

And you should read Descartes. Then you'd understand him better and wouldn't think he thought your neurology has nothing to do with your decision to go and have a meal. — Bartricks

I can smell the pork cooking, that I set out to have for dinner from the decision and its inputs that only my mind came up with by conscious figuring from a mind that is all one with no parts.

Oh, no, I see that yet another Ralph had his entire brain and brain stem removed. I rushed over. I thought he might say, "I've lost my mind!" but he was quiet.

As for your wonderings about helping, it's all there in my initial statement, which I'm leaving as is. Maybe some other responders can turn it into better form or condense it to a simpler 1-2-3.

Descartes has got my back. — Bartricks

You should have read Horace before Descartes, but that's not their order in the encyclopedia.

I'm going to eat dinner, because my mind came up with it all by itself with no help from neurology or my central nervous system or the older neurons in my gut. Then I can pull the cart better.

just go in for the attack — Bartricks

I have assisted your arguments concerning the indivisibility of the elementals and the unity of consciousness.

Now which premise in his oh so dated argument are you disputing? — Bartricks

The same as he always get disputed about, that distinct realm can't interpenetrate, plus the energy transfer not conserving energy, plus the way I plainly put it earlier. I should have written it in French, I guess.

reasonable doubt — Bartricks

It's just that systems of any kind require parts, and that those parts came beforehand.

I mean, you've been unable to raise a reasonable doubt about either premise. — Bartricks

Generally, I'm helping. although in that attempt some reasonable doubt came in.

You sooo haven't read him. — Bartricks

Res extensa and res cogitans as his way of saying it.

You've never read him, have you? — Bartricks

Sorry, wrong again; I could even read his latin. I won't hold it against you.

Which premise are you disputing? — Bartricks

I'm helping your argument by expanding on it so maybe it can get into better form but still remain true to itself. The jury is still out, not just me, on non-physical notions. In a more final court, the judge may respond, "Immaterial!"

Note, if your answer to my question is 'b' then that is also the answer to what you are. — Bartricks

My good friend and interesting discusser and fast typer, you got it wrong, but you had to, so you are forgiven. No hard feelings.

Does he owe me $500? — Bartricks

No, full price, if that memory is still intact, otherwise…

a) one of the greatest thinkers of all time — Bartricks

He did great by what was known at the time.

Ok, so what - does this half-Ralph now owe me $500? — Bartricks

He owes a lot more than that if he has no insurance.

At first, another Ralph with one hemisphere of the brain taken out, has a disabled mind and body, but, eventually, we hope, as usual, that the remaining hemisphere takes over the missing functions.

Which premise of my argument mentioned qualia? — Bartricks

That's an agreed on name for the contents of the mind.

Descartes — Bartricks

I'd say he put the cart before the horse.

I said the MIND is indivisible. This is something our reason represents to be the case. — Bartricks

Yes, so it appears, but not all that happens gets into consciousness.

OK, about the brain: we can poke at the brain and then the experience appears in the mind, then repeat it, and then the same.

For instance, have you ever attributed half a mind to a person? What would that even mean? — Bartricks

To relieve severe epilepsy, the corpus callous is severed, effectively producing two consciousness, although there is still the brain stem area common to the two minds. While it is a good relief, sometimes the two minds work against each other in a bad way.

I don't understand what you mean. Why are you talking about qualia? — Bartricks

I supported that the objects of consciousness, as qualia, are indeed unified.

So, you haven't challenged premise 1 — Bartricks

I am helping premise 1. Nature has been shown to be discrete, by Quantum Mechanics, as in the smallest entities that can't be divided any more. Infinite divisibility is out.

1. If an object is material, then it is divisible
2. My mind is not divisible
3. Therefore my mind is not material — Bartricks

The argument needs some improvement:

1. If an object is material, then it is divisible into quanta; however, the Planck size is the absolute small size limit beneath which the quantum is no longer divisible. All has been quantized so far except space-time gravity, this effort being just barely underway by loop quantum gravity hoping to achieve space-time quanta. There is no continuum in nature, as Einstein thought, but his theory still holds at large numbers of grains. Also, even the smallest quantum has extension—the Plank size. See for time—the Plank time. One could still argue that the ultimate basis of the covariant quantum fields are continuous waves, but above that quanta come into play. As an aside, the waves are good for a TOE, in that the ultimate basis cannot have parts.

Field quanta are the key to the once mysterious 2-slit experiment: even sending one particle at a time builds up an interference pattern, thus, the particle is a field of waves of energy. Mass is equivalent to mass which approximates energy being equivalent to matter.

2. My mind is not divisible. The objects of consciousness, as what is currently on/in the mind are indeed unified, these called qualia, and are also smoothly stitched onto previous qualia. These qualia match external and internal inputs, mostly, with the proviso that a more useful face has been painted on them. This representation takes time, as so did the figuring of the thought, action, or scene produced. So, then, the inputs to the mind are divisible, at least. Note that systems always have parts. 'More' is always different: one neuron alone can't do anything but when there are more then connections become. The brain doesn't have two hundred neuron connections for nothing—these to be ignored because the mind is proposed to have a separate apparatus and separate information.

Consciousness/mind is therefore too late in the process to be able to do any figuring on its own; it always shows the past, but this does not crush the ability of qualia to be useful, since evolution doesn't spend great expense for nothing, especially that which had so much time and energy invested over millions of years. One proposed usage is that to know and record what went on is best and most quickly done through this self-developed symbolic language of qualia. As such, other figuring areas can then check in immediately or later, expanding on it, if need be, as rumination, deliberation, and such.

3. Therefore my mind is not material. This isn't known, even by itself, and also it doesn't necessarily follow here from (1) and (2). Whatever is proposed as immaterial, intangible, transcendent, and the like as distinct, would still have to exchange material energy with the physical/material realm and speak its language, making it not really distinct. Research continues, but so far the physical does it all. It has to be said, though, that conscious qualia would seem to be of a fantastic process. Unfortunately, it is difficult if not impossible to get at the private internal first person experience from the public external third person.

I am being told that my mind is a simple thing — Bartricks

Shame on those people insulting you.

Seriously, the simplest are covariant quantum fields.

Christians allegiance is to someone besides their families — Gregory

Worship 'God' over all else, all the time. That's why humans were created on Earth.

My brain does not. — Bartricks

Best have that useless organ removed, for it uses most of the energy. I can see that your brain isn't doing anything.

Enjoy the forum, and best wishes.

The god doesn't want anything to do with us. Not cowardice, but contempt. — Bartricks

What a mean Guy; With 'friends' like Him, we hardly need the Devil.

So, where's the evidence my brain thinks? — Bartricks

Welcome.

I have half a mind to tell you… oh, never mind but as such all matters;…

Soul is theSpirit of Unconditional Love.

17. Two and only two stable charged matter particles in free space, the electron and the proton, and no uncharged matter particles. Only one stable energy particle in free space, the photon, neutral (or both positive and negative together), and no charged energy particles. (Neutrons decay within 12 minutes in free space.) — PoeticUniverse

A very curious symmetry, these three stable particles and their antiparticles… as if there were only those number of ways to make them, which in this restrictance ought to tell us about their source from two types of underlying waves of something and waves of an anti- something piling up for a veery long time, since the masses are small, and then eventually big banging outward because infinite density is not possible.

wave amplitude = charge; wave length = extension into dimension; wave frequency = energy; protons = the waves; electrons = the wave envelopes, or something like that, these showing in the centers of oscillation blown forth as our universe from the necessarily neutral 'cosmic egg'.

Consciousness must have a function. — Michael McMahon

Probably it is the brain's chosen form, as qualia, to broadcast globally to other brain areas and to put into memory.

If someone can commit murder and God can step in and wipe it clean, that's evil. — Gregory

Yes, so easy to erase. One can also say an act of contrition, avoiding the confessional and the hundred Hail Mary and Our Father prayers. And to think of the time wasted hearing about mortal sins sending one to Hell and more. No dinosaurs living on my Ark.

Faith without facts is for fools.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop

Isn't faith often - or always, by definition? - without facts? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Faith only, without fact, is for ungrounded preachers just saying … like I heard once, "If you don't believe what we do, then I'm afraid to tell you what will happen to you."

More Bible Study Class—as begun in another, similar thread:

I did read the Bible, as I was Catholic, until 5th grade, and I am referring to some of my 4th grade notes here:

God, not really being everywhere, moves about from place to place, walks around in the Garden of Eden, comes down from Heaven to see the Tower of Babel, the city of Sodom, and so on. So, God is neither everywhere nor knows everything, since He must come over to investigate things. As in… God asks Adam where he had hidden himself and asks Cain where his brother is.

Nor is God invisible, as He can be ‘seen’ above, and has eyes, ears, hand, are, fingers, and such; however, some who see Him are ended by “No one can see Me and live”. Moses was OK since he only saw the back of God. Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, Jeremiah and others also saw God and somehow survived. Actually, no where in the Bible does it say that God knows everything.

I learned all this at St. Bernadine Catholic Grammar School, Forest Park, Illinois, which is next to the Atomic Fireball Factory that burned down once… but that’s another story.

After my conversion to normalcy in 5th grade, but before falling in love with my nun in 6th grade, another story, I looked even deeper into the beauty and the strangeness of the Bible, since I was bored in school, and noted that:

Many Bible stories were recorded in writing for the first time—they were oral before—long after the historical events described, thus creating a further history altered by hindsight, shaped by the intervening events. For example, the destruction of Solomon’s temple is foretold in the books of prophecy written long after the event, foretelling what had already happened… Same for the New Testament, a few hundred years or so afterward…

I also found some notes from Molly McGuire, whom I often spent time under a tree with, but that is another story… By the way, we raided the dumpsters of the Fireball Factory and filled empty desks with fireballs…

Unfortunately, my 6th grade nun, Sister Theophelia, ran off with our priest, Father Kramer. I didn’t even know that little old me might have had a chance with her… I was afraid to ask to walk her home and all that, although she lived but twenty feet away, in the convent.

In 7th grade, they separated the girls from the boys, and so we all just got all the hotter for each other, then meeting after school and… but that’s another story—and also maybe no one wants to hear about it.

The original text of what was to become one of the Bibles that we might own today was actually translated numerous times, with each new generation imposing its own political and religious agenda on it. I had a Greek Septuagint version once. — 6th grade notes

So, my notes go on to say that Exodus looked somewhat suspicious: 600,000 men, along with women, livestock, and children, wandering around for forty years in an arid wasteland, just because Moses, being a man, wouldn’t ask for directions. Also, there was no archaeological trace, so probably is was just a small thing that got way exaggerated. As for a conquest of Canaan, full of original Israelite conquerors, it was really like “We have met the Canaanites and they are us”. As for David writing so many psalms, he didn’t really, for the Hebrew word for ‘of’ really meant ‘for’, as in for David.

For homework, read the great poem of the Song of Solomon with your girlfriend or boyfriend and write up the results.

Please don’t be late for class tomorrow.

'every event must have a cause' — 3017amen

Except for the causeless bedrock that has to have random events.

wonderment — 3017amen

To future columns, we stretch our present row,
By a lifeline of tenuously spun vow.
Oh, how soon the weighted web begins to fail;
The only real time under our feet is now.

Breathe in all that’s good, breathe out all that’s bad;
Peace flows into you—it’s warm, wet, and glad.
Feel it spread throughout the body, then say,
‘This is the best life that I’ve ever had!’

Daydreams are filled with thoughts on promenade:
Wishes, fantasies o’er the mind cascade.
Listen well to these plans already made,
For by sundown the phantom shapes may fade.

World does not pass by; you pass through it.
Clear your being so the treasure may arrive;
This spirit sparkles of a different light,
The gemstones are of a different mine.

law of attraction — 3017amen

Daydreams pierce the noise of consciousness,
To reveal that which is best for us; yes,
Mere aspiration halves realization;
What we have now was once a dream, no less.

Throughout the day, we’re living out the dream,
Drifting on air, aloft in the day-beam,
Causing, when condensing in night’s dark stream,
Many more such wondrous dreams, it would seem.

We construct the world that our dreams require,
One moulded closer to the heart’s desire.
In this world body of the soul inspired,
We’ll live life entire before we expire.

Close your eyes and realize the light within;
Allow visualization to begin;
This attracts into your life: dreams, wishes,
And desires—all that you would believe in!

Dreams become imagination’s command;
The impossible we now understand.
To know that dreams can come true makes them so.
A real fantasyland is being planned.

Success blossoms out of the thoughtful dream,
Grown from seeds of what life to us should seem,
Then bears forth fruit, healthy and delicious,
In the garden watered by the wishing stream.

For example when an atheist makes a statement to declare that God doesn't exist they put themselves into an analogous ontological argument conundrum (and dubious position of defending same). — 3017amen

Yes, as truth-claimers either way will always be asked to show/prove their declarations in such a sure and final way that the sensible listeners have to drop all resistance and can't help to convert to the sure thing shown. I do realize that some, whose brains cannot learn or change, may still try to deny and cling to their unshowable position. Some still go for a flat Earth, even.

So, then, both black and white fiats of God or no God are extreme positions. It is no matter if either position leads to more or less violence. Any absolute position on any not showable subject will run into trouble, much of this self caused by the dishonest sureity proclaimed, for what opposes it will be seen to be not right, or evil, even, or at least as seeming to undermine the credibility of the sure thing by the very existence of some thinking otherwise. These kinds of 'goods' are flawed, as they produce fake 'evils'.