also wanted to point out that Christians have no way of knowing if Luke, Mark, and even Paul were real Apostles and could write Scripture. So there is a hole in the Bible — Gregory

How is History, and pre-History verified and provable?

Au contraire, I feel personhood is the heart of the issue; after all pro-choicers have to prove that abortion isn't murder and the immorality of murder is based on the concept of personhood.

As for emotions, you're right, women seem to be assessing the issue emotionally rather than rationally - those who want children and are thus emotionally invested think of fetuses as persons and those who don't want children lack the emotions to think of fetuses as persons. — TheMadFool

TMF!

For the sake of argument, if it is true that human beings require time for [to maintain] their own existence, and to get to point B (birth), there logically must be a point A (conception), then how does one "prove personhood"?

To the extent that I can discern, there's no reason not to posit noumena. In other words, Kant can't be penalized for his concept of noumena.

That said, there maybe enough justification to apply Occam's razor - the world with both noumena and phenomena would be orders of magnitude greater in complexity than just phenomena without the noumena. — TheMadFool

Yes, and you can also, broadly speaking, treat like cases likely and different cases differently. And as such, that is really the one basic premise behind synthetic a priori knowledge. It's different because of its synthesis. In any case, we still cannot determine the true nature of these things-in-themselves.

Consciousness remains a mystery... . But once again, the irony is that the synthetic a priori is very useful in science. Go figure :smile:

That's kind of a fun question :wink:

I think the logician would say its appearance is neither. And the dialectician would say its appearance is mottled.

And I'll go out on a limb and say the physicist might say its appearance is complementary. (And as a fourth option, the philosopher might say its appearance is subjective/a subjective truth... .)

Is 'positivism' just a deficient Kantianism, regardless of Kant's own faults, an inconsistent doctrine that cannot be judged by its own standards? — Sentience

In keeping with the existential psychology theme, while like LP, existentialism rests on phenomenology. However, the concept of being, becoming, and potentiality, relative to the human condition, did not seem to be on the radar for the LP's. Psychologists discovered in the early 20th century the importance of both/and versus either/or in phenomenology and resulting axioms of logic. By the mid-sixties, LP, and its limitations, seemingly became apparent in cognitive science and its popularity waned.

I don't think Kant specifically addressed cognitive science...though I would welcome correction because it certainly seems he was encroaching into a domain that perhaps he was not qualified to speak to... .

In any case it's important to underscore that existential psychology (along with other groups) uncovered the limits of verbal, analytic, conceptional rationality by subordinating those to raw experience, prior to any concepts or abstractions (much like the metaphysical Will/Voluntarism)..

And so as a segue to the synthetic a priori knowledge, if one has both a phenomenal experience combined with an a priori inclination to posit things like causational concepts or judgements, the LP would claim irrelevant. The irony is, most all theories in physics involve (start with) synthetic propositions.

we were assuming that there was a particular person who could be loosely given the title of Jesus then it would follow that we'd assume he was "conscious". — substantivalism

God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. It is a concept that was invented to concentrate power
— Pro Hominem

Couldn't be further from the truth. In Christianity Jesus had a conscious existence.

It's no coincidence of our language/social life or of his perspective that we as a society make metaphors/stories that chastise us for acting as if we are our own gods. — substantivalism

That sounds like a psychological pathology that needs resolved.

I have two questions related to your claim:

1. Provide substantiating evidence to support your claim that the Christian Bible is fictitious.
2. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct it's all fiction, a. Explain its popularity in detail from a sociological, psychological, philosophical, and scientific view. b. Would your claim be considered your own subjective truth or an objective truth?

You made the claim now it's your turn. Let's see how you respond... .

We (Sub and I) just started with some discourse. Yours and mine on the other hand (more of just a fishing expedition), only proved your bark had no bite, LOL

Be well my friend.

It's clear he just continues to change the subject. I have met some intelligent people on this Forum, he is not one of them, his intellectual insecurity is brutally painful to see. He is one of the most incompetent dialecticians I have encountered on this Forum. — JerseyFlight

Trolling instead of answering my questions, again? Jeeze dude, you're incriminating yourself. Please, don't take it the wrong way, but during our thought experiment we just had, I have concluded that you're all bark and no bite, as suspected. Sometimes gut reactions are telling.

Just some friendly advice, I know EOG topics can get quite emotional, so you may want to consider the following, which is also quite prophetic (no pun intended):


“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

1. From the Christian Bible/history book, see John, Exodus, et.al . — 3017amen
So it is a language game being played? — substantivalism

I'm not following that one Sub, how is the so-called historical account of Jesus a language game?

2. Okay so how can you explain your consciousness (conscious existence)? — 3017amen
Something we call conscious existence exists and it has rather intriguing conceptual features that repeat. By explain here you mean describe, right? As to explain if meant to mean discover the true nature of said entity is an impossible thing to perform by you or me. — substantivalism

No, not describe. If we describe, we will encounter dialectic/both-and which in turn, transcendent of formal logic and/or binary dichotomous thinking. Nonetheless, I am certainly willing to explore your notion of describing how the Freudian unconscious, conscious and subconscious mind all work together in unison.

Otherwise, to answer you succinctly, I am speaking of the nature of existence, the thing-in-itself.
And so, please feel free to either describe or explain the nature of your consciousness itself, without encountering an impasse using whichever form of logic or Philosophy you choose (or psychology). For our purpose of EOG topic's, I will save you the time and go on record that you cannot, and that you/we will both uncover and discover some form of brute mystery. Which in turn, goes back to my question to you regarding a belief in no God/Jesus.

. What's an abstract model? — 3017amen
A language or collection of terms that match directly to our experiences but also new terms that relay relations/properties that aren't readily perceptually apparent but prove useful in navigating our experiences. Think of the terms used to describe what resides within a black box even though we cannot see within it. — substantivalism

And so the question related to consciousness there. Accordingly, are you saying abstract models help us understand something? In our context, that is an important question by the way.

. If you are an atheist, how were you able to determine no God? — 3017amen
I've followed a four square of definitions regarding the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist, and theist in which specify not just whether you believe in god (atheist or theist) but also if you consider such an entity to be known or unknown (agnostic or gnostic) so a gnostic atheist wouldn't believe in god and consider it non existant. I can't take any of them until you specify what this "god" is so I remain ignostic. — substantivalism

Of course, the reality of that premise is incorrect. It's incorrect because you yourself, arrived at the conclusion of ambivalence by some logical means and method. Otherwise, from what definition of terms did you arrive at that conclusion. I've already told you mine.

5. What kind of experiences are you referring to? — 3017amen
Your experiences perceptual (sensory) or sudden experiences from within or thoughts. — substantivalism

That would lead my to believe you hold, once again for our purposes, a philosophical view of subjectivism, and/or a derivative of same( ?). Otherwise, there are those who have so-called religious experiences, which in turn become their truth, and their truth only.

What are examples of' abstract understanding of the world'? — 3017amen
Naive realism (the kind of thinking about the world your born with/learn about early on) and most every scientific model. — substantivalism

Can you explain that (Naïve realism) a little? Does it have to do with mathematical abstracts or something else? If it does, then you would be headed down a slippery slope of Platonic essences and forms, which would infer metaphysical existence of some sort, you know, like the laws of physics.

7. Is that a metaphysical theory of consciousness, of some sort? — 3017amen
No, merely a thought experiment regarding the fact that even a person following solipsism clearly doesn't control his reality as much as he boasts that he does. — substantivalism

Does that include the metaphysical Will? Do you think you have such a thing? (That's another important question, so take the time to think about it please.)

. Does that translate into a form of Subjectivism; subjective truth? — 3017amen
I don't know. You'll need to clarify. — substantivalism

See number 5. above. If you still don't quite get it, we can parse the differences between Objectivism and Subjectivism. But you will be called to justify your belief system (as I), during that process, along the way. In other words, it's a broad subject but very much relevant to our discussion.

"Fuck you, 3017"
— tim wood
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

Is personhood in re fetuses just a matter of whether you want children or not?? — TheMadFool

TMF!

'personhood' is indeed a non sequitur to those who want to justify abortion (I'm a moderate independent/am ok with certain exceptions/endangerment of the mother, etc.). Where possible. I advocate the adoption-option.

Anyway back to the non sequitur argument “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”:

All existence requires time
Human beings exist
Human beings require time for their existence

So the thinking there is 'personhood' is irrelevant and a non sequitur because logically, the process that's involved in the creation of a being (verb), requires time for its own existence. (In other words, it doesn't matter where you are along in the process...)

But of course, this whole argument has more to do with emotions than logic :wink:

Kant uses certain scientific truths that can only be gained through our a priori psychological predisposition for space/time/causality (and other categories).
Reply — schopenhauer1

It comes from a priori synthetic categories of our psychology. — schopenhauer1

Sentience!

My fellow existentialist Shop1 summed it up rather nicely. In the forgoing quote, the infamous example, as used in science/physics, is the judgement that 'all events must have a cause'. That's an important distinction, as Shop 1 put it, from our psychological make up. Meaning, there are certain Kantian innate, intuitive, a priori 'fixed' features of consciousness, that posit such judgements and ideas. And without having the ability to posit such ideas (synthetic a priori), discoveries in physics would be extremely limited--perhaps not even possible at all.. It could be thought of as our intrinsic metaphysical Will that we are unable to control, from within our stream of consciousness. And in this case, it's all relative to our sense of wonderment. Our metaphysical will creates possibilities (which in-turn enhance our quality of life as we know it).

And so our intellect creates these ideas a priori, partially from experiencing the world (phenomenology), and partially from this sixth sense as it were; this a priori intuition, something beyond the ordinary five senses---synthetic propositions/judgements. The supposition relates to how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible. I believe that is part of the 'bridge' you are speaking of...the bridge that transcends logic. It's transcendent because it's something beyond pure reason and the ordinary five senses/sensory experience. The sense of wonderment from self-awareness, which confers little if any Darwinian survival advantages, exists in the mind a priori.

With respect to the Copernican Revolution, what is your thought there?

With respect to Logical Positivism, in short, cognitive science came to reject it (as was obvious over time) viz the aforementioned/various states of consciousness/higher reaches of human nature... .

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

Well you saying "Jesus = God" is at best a renaming of the biblical character Jesus — substantivalism

1. From the Christian Bible/history book, see John, Exodus, et.al.

Never said it did only that such methods would prove useful in predicting either our own experiences or upon reflection of our abstract models (naive realism mixed with some biological understanding of human beings) you could find that certain ideas from other models prove consistent as well as fruitful in terms of predictive success — substantivalism

2. Okay so how can you explain your consciousness (conscious existence)?
3. What's an abstract model?

Only if the term is defined and the assumptions clarified can we make an assessment as to whether such an entity is consistent with said experiences/abstract understanding of the world for a certain person. — substantivalism

4. If you are an atheist, how were you able to determine no God?
5. What kind of experiences are you referring to?
6. What are examples of' abstract understanding of the world'?

They cannot just as a person who posits the existence of only their own mind can't help but act (strangely enough) as if they aren't alone nor truly be worthy of ruling their experiences fully (can they demand when they slam into the wall when to feel pain or not feel pain). — substantivalism

7. Is that a metaphysical theory of consciousness, of some sort?
8. Does that translate into a form of Subjectivism; subjective truth?

Well you haven't ever defined god here. I'd advise you to stop dodging as you are doing to him and you have in the past done to me. Clarify what it's that you mean by the term "god" in positive terms. — substantivalism

I'm really at a loss. Jesus of Nazareth. Does that define it better?

Reasoning can vary from inductive to deductive as well as float among many different logical systems (para-consistent to classical) but some combination or use of these methods or some mixture does serve us considerable success in predicting events in our experiences. — substantivalism

But that doesn't explain the nature of consciousness, does it? I mean, how does deduction provide for such explanation?

And so if you can't answer the question relative to your own consciousness, how can you posit no God?

Otherwise, how can the blind person describe the existence of the color red?

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood

If you want to ask a valid question then don't pack it with controversial premises.
8m — JerseyFlight

I'm not following that, what's so controversial about the question??
Jesus=God, right?

Or, maybe let's start from your so-called premise; what's a Snark?

What's a snark,?

And so what is a God? I know Jesus to be a literary figure that may or may not have existed. — JerseyFlight

I'm sorry is there a misunderstanding as to why you're unable to answer my question? Let me post it again below, and/or maybe take a day or two to think about it, no rush (kind of like you deferred to metaphysician undercover in the mathematical thread).

"Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?"

And, for clarification, I've answered that, in Christianity, Jesus is God.

Thirdly, I've already advised you that I'm a Christian Existentialist. And you are... ?

must explain what you mean by the term, — JerseyFlight

God=Jesus

If you're scared say you're scared!!

Okay since you won't answer that you're an atheist, I'm assuming you are agnostic or something else correct?

God=Jesus

Just an observation, and don't take it the wrong way. In reflecting on the brief history from your participation in EOG type threads here, as well as the current mathematic thread, you came/come across as carrying a big-stick full of ad hominem remarks, now when asked pointed questions, (in several threads) about your belief in no God in this particular case, you seem to be folding under pressure.

I certainly hope I'm wrong, and I hope you have more bark to your bite, but I got to tell you, you're not impressing me right now. It's okay though, I'll be able to flush these things out pretty quickly...

The terms in most need of clarification in this sentence are "objective reasoning" and "God." If you want to avoid asking a loaded question then you must define these terms. — JerseyFlight

I don't understand. As an atheist, are you acquiescing to a God then?

Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

RE:

Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?

How much do you rely on Objectivity?

BTW...it's called Christian Existentialism.

What do you mean by objectivity? — JerseyFlight

Opposite of Subjectivity.

Is it really so orderly after all? There is new evidence that the so-called laws of physics aren't even constant throughout the universe. You're part of the old school, which is just now beginning to get bumped out. More critical scientists are emerging who aren't afraid to ask the question, what if symmetry isn't part of the equation, what if we are discovering chaos? Now this terrifies idealist thinkers, this is why they begin with the projection of idealism. (I should go gently here, not my strong suit, because reality is pretty damn scary when you remove all the idealist assumptions -- that is, when one has been programmed to derive their sense of safety and well-being from them). Nevertheless, the discovery of disorder and chaos doesn't actually change anything except for our beliefs. We can still use our intelligence to make a world that is valuable to life. — JerseyFlight

Are you sure? Complete chaos precludes contingent order. I thought the closest thing you get to chaos is random fluctuations in QM and indeterminacy in nature (deterministic chaos)?

That's right, formal logic deals with essences, not with actual things. But dialectics is not formal logic. — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed, simple enough! :up:

BTW, MU, are you a mathematical realist or anti-realist?

The abolishment of slavery was done on Christian arguments. Equal rights is one of the core ideas in Christianity. Western society today is still very much a Christian one, in the sense that we subscribe to Christian morality. So I reiterate, at the very least one needs to treat religion as 'real' in the abstract way. — TrespassingAcademia

Agreed. People seem to forget Jesus' mission was much about Love and pacifism. And the OT/Wisdom Books about virtuous social behavior that were developed along side Greek philosophy and culture (both were influenced by each other), are still valued and used in a pragmatic way (table manners, advice concerning friendships, marriages, wisdom itself, and other basic ideas about happiness & the intellect).

That is, what does Jesus have to do with the explanation of consciousness? — JerseyFlight

Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?

How much do you rely on Objectivity?

The relationship of ‘consciousness’ and what we think of as religion — Wayfarer

Keep in mind, Wayfarer, the Hellenistic & Neoplatonic period in ancient Greek history where Gnosticism had flourished, consciousness became synonymous with the "Know thyself" maxim (that Plato used) which comes from Gnosis itself (self awareness/self knowledge); ineffable, direct experience and wisdom, so on and so forth. Similar Christian philosophy was included in the lost Gospel of Thomas wherein specifically, personal 'secret' knowledge was thought of as a virtue to salvation.

But as history goes, some Gnostics thought Jesus was not God but rather just a human who had special revelation/wisdom/enlightenment through secret knowledge. Fast forwarding, my interpretation from that is more or less the metaphysical philosophy of Subjective Idealism. Once again though, it's not about throwing the baby out with all of the bathwater. In this case, discern or keep what works.

Anyway, the common theme there is trying to understand the nature consciousness itself, for which we have no logical explanation. Yet another mystery.

The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

I'll pass on sharing information, thanks anyway.

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood

"The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too.
— tim wood

It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid!
— tim wood

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood

This is nonsense. You might as well try to bring Zeus into the picture, Jesus has nothing to do with what you are talking about, and you are here attempting to pass off a fallacy ("explain consciousness") as though it were some kind of competent, honest reasoning, it is no such thing — JerseyFlight

Forgive me I'm really not following what you're saying there, can you make your argument clear?

which means you are basically fucked — JerseyFlight

Oh my, are you one of those angry atheists? From time to time on this site we see angry atheists pop in and out, sort of trolling about, dropping f-bombs. What's yet another irony is that you would think an atheist wouldn't be so upset about a particular God's existence, especially when in fact he or she doesn't hold such beliefs.

I mean, why be so angry when you know God doesn't exist? Kind of a contradiction, no?

Anyway, be well.

By senseless I mean absence of final purpose of anything — philosopher004

I'm not following that. Having a sense of final purpose confers no biological survival advantages. What's your point in wondering about purpose?

am not denying the existence of God but we may be ruled by a benevolent deity to an evil alien civilization who is also in other words God. — philosopher004

Okay, well, there could be a "Multiverse" too... .

Why should it be explained?We humans just try to fit everything in our tiny brains and take for granted that everything should be explain in this vast universe.What if everything is senseless?. — philosopher004

Oh, I see. So I think what I'm hearing from you is that you can't explain how you got here (your own existence) yet you're making a judgement about a God's existence, right?

Or think of it another way. In Christianity Jesus was known to be the metaphorical son of God who had a consciousness. You have a consciousness. And neither of which, it seems, can be explained using logic, right?

And as far as tiny brains, are you suggesting the bigger the brain is, the better?

Anyway, what do you mean by senseless? Do you mean a sense of purpose?

You are completely insane

That's sort of another irony, now that I think about it. Didn't historical accountings of Jesus, as it were, suggest accusation's of insanity or something else that resembles it... ?

In any case, I suppose nothing really new under the sun there, LOL.

Neither. This is a false choice. Mathematics doesn't explain things. It correlates with them. Mathematics will allow you to design an aircraft, but it doesn't explain why it flies. — Pro Hominem

Okay. What then explains existence?

Consciousness exists because complexity accumulates in the universe. — Pro Hominem

What do you mean by complexity? Is that like a sort of metaphysical phenomena? I'm not following that...

Rationality will allow us to uncover our further evolution. — Pro Hominem

What kind of rationality are you speaking of? For instance, a priori or a posteriori kinds of "rationality" as you say?

The world IS, and some survive in it. — Pro Hominem

Oh I got it, are you saying the world just is, kind of like a logical necessity? Otherwise you haven't explained why we have mathematical ability. Can you shed any light on that?

I keep praying for God to deliver manna from heaven, but he's not — Pro Hominem

I'm confused, I thought perhaps you were an atheist (?). No matter, I look forward to your reply.