First, we would need to define what a religion is.
— Philosophim

I have purposely bypassed this approach. — JerseyFlight

Without defining what a religion is, I'm not sure we can come to any meaningful discussion comparing it to technology. Each of us would just use our own subjective interpretations at that point, and we would each be in our own opinionated world. If that is the type of topic you would like this to be, I will bow out and let others continue.

I don't think of it in terms of a self-conscious religious movement...(Instead) how it causes him to act and how he acts toward it. Do people worship technology, for example? — JerseyFlight

I see. If what we're trying to discover here is whether people's implicit use and regard towards technology trends to a religion, I don't think it quite hits the mark. First, we would need to define what a religion is. Feel free to add or amend to this, but I'll start that a simple definition of religion is a group of people who believe in something besides themselves has the knowledge and power to guide them towards a life with purpose. This could be a cult like figure, or a God for example.

When AI arrives in the future, there might very well be a religion because an AI would be an entity that could provide an "answer". Technology as it is right now might have hints of this depending on what specific technology is being used, but I think it still trends more towards a "tool".

A tool is an object that we use to accomplish a specific purpose. A pen, a book, and a word document are all tools we can use to communicate ideas with other people. But the pen, the book, nor the word document itself provide an answer to life. People who write on the word document may be someone a religion sprouts out of, but no one worships the mighty Microsoft Word to give us the answers to life.

What happens if the average person must go without their phone, without the internet, without television, even for the space of one week? — JerseyFlight

They become bored. Technology has been a fantastic way to gain human connections, business, and entertainment. It is not the tools themselves that we are enamored with, it the tools ability to provide us access to these things that we crave that we appreciate. But at the end of the day, we don't look to the tool itself for answers to life's questions, but the people we connect with.

I would like to see some of the thinkers on here comment on technology within the context of symbolism, specifically contrasting it with religious symbolism. — JerseyFlight

Did you have a symbol in mind yourself to discuss? If not, I suppose the closest we could get to symbols with technology off the top of my mind is the Apple symbol. I don't know about now, but at one time it meant a name brand of originality, creativity, and quality. But I'm not sure that's isolated to technology. Name brand imagery and symbolism is supposed to excite you to buy the product, not look to it for life's deeper answers on how to live.

Alright, I've added enough for now. Is my line of reasoning going where you expected, or did you want to go somewhere else with it?

Neat topic. I don't think its a new religion, just people "nerding out" about the possible future. People did it in the industrial age, when computers first came out, the internet, and now. If we are to achieve immortality, it will likely be due to AI.

Can computers think? Here's a cool video where they train a robot arm to be able to write the word "Hi" without ever actually teaching the robot arm how to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chukkEeGrLM

In the future it is not unreasonable that they will be able to think at a much higher level. As for when they will reach the "human" level of thought, that still may be quite a ways off. Also, I don't think everyone believes tools dehumanize people. Many people praise the wonders of humanity because of our tools as well. Tools often times make certain skill sets obsolete for jobs, which can be seen as hurting human kind. I see this as short sighted thinking however. We will always invent new jobs for people to do. And if not? God forbid we get robots to do things for us to the point we can use our time for our own pursuits instead of the drudgery of "making a living".

As for a new "religion", there will always be those who find causes they obsess over and "worship". It could be science, sports, philosophy, or some other passion in their life they believe gives them meaning, purpose, or fulfillment. I would say religion slowly loses steam in open and educated societies because people have alternatives. In ignorant societies, religion may be the only avenue they've heard towards fulfillment and the value of the self. It may be the first time they've heard about working towards something greater than yourself, your village, or your government.

I believe religion fulfills a human emotional need that provides a rationality the secular world often cannot. If the secular world can produce alternative rationalities that fulfill the human need that religion fills, then it presents an alternative that people can choose.

First I want to point out these are descriptions of two very different scenarios. The belief that one can win, but knows it is likely they will not, is a description of two beliefs (one a belief classed as knowledge, that do not contradict each other. The belief that one WILL win despite one's knowledge of the odds, is completely different. — Coben

Correct. One can have knowledge, but believe that knowledge is wrong. One cannot both know, and not know the same thing. One cannot believe, and not believe the same thing. But one can know something, and believe their knowledge to be wrong. This is what you were to pull out of the example.

Knowledge is a logical process that must follow certain path, and arrives at deductive conclusions. A belief is simply a wish or desire that something is a particular way. I can believe whatever I want. But what I can know is based on a logical process and deductive conclusion. Part 4 goes into inductions, the specific kinds of beliefs like probability, possibility, plausibility, and irrational beliefs. There I analyze what each entails, examples of when it is used, and the soundness of them.

I'm afraid I am not going to read a long essay or series of essays online. If you prefer not to respond to people who won't read the paper, I'll understand. — Coben

That is fair. This OP is about those essays though. I would wonder why you would post if you aren't going to read the theory though. I can't imagine arguing about a theory I have no knowledge of.

I define knowledge and beliefs a very particular way using logic from the base up. As such, I'm going to use those terms here. You may find the reads enjoyable. I have never had a single person able to prove these essays conclusions as wrong. In fact, I use this method of knowledge within my day to day. Just a small background if you are concerned it is amateur, I have a master's in philosophy, and I program for a living today. I am no intellectual slouch, or naive. It does not mean my argument is correct, only that it is likely worth your time to read.

Each is about the length of part 1. Part 1 is basic, and does not vary much from the conclusions of many other epistemologists. Part 2 is where you'll see a new way of looking at knowledge. Part 3 and 4 are mostly expanding upon the conclusions of part 2, and are only needed if there are further questions.

So when you're whole body looks different (different face, shape of body, length) you keep the same personality? — CarpeDiem

Oh, in that case, your personality would likely change a little. Imagine being short, then suddenly becoming tall. Or being tall, and suddenly becoming short. As a male, your interactions with other people would likely change significantly. This goes from being beautiful, to being ugly as well.

I would put though that your personality would likely change with other people, but your private personality might remain the same.

Very nice Tim Wood! I think he's got you covered Ignoro.

In a way, yes. How different depends. While memories do shape us, our genetics and chemical makeup are a certain base that our memories rest in. So if we forget, we change what we have built ourselves to be, but retain the core of what we are.

If you mean identically? No, you should be the same. Your personality is a combination of genetic and chemical expression. If that is identical, to what you had a second before, your personality should be the same.

I'll give it my best shot.

So one of the things about logic is it is irrelevant to time. The premises state the facts as they are at a particular moment. If the facts change, then that is a different argument.

So lets start with your first premise. We know it is unnecessary to consider time, just a "slice of time". So lets examine your slices.

So our first premise is that Q exists.
Our second premise is that P can exist while Q exists, but it is not necessary that P exists, for Q to exist.
In logic it would be
1. Q
2. P
So far, you have indicated no casual relation between the two.

Now your third premise is a little trickier to break down. You are establishing a relationship, but it is indirect. If I understand this correctly, it means there is no causal relationship between the two, but perhaps there is a consequent interaction. Maybe P and Q bump into one another. Maybe P bumps into R, which bumps into Q, changing the state of Q into something else like W.

In logic, P, Q, and all the letters represent a sliced state of being. Meaning if Q is altered, it is no longer Q anymore. We make a new letter at this point. If we say things rely on Q, we would say, "Q causes R", which is represented by Q -> R.

So I would say at this point you'll need to clarify what you mean by an indirect relationship. The best way to do that is invent states of relation, creating a new letter for each one.

As for a contributory cause, I believe that means that Q's existence or state is part of the necessary requirement for R to exist. As it is a contribution, it implies that more than one states are necessary for R to exist.

So for example, (P and Q) -> R

P and Q do not rely on each other for their existence, but together, they create a new state. Just remember that P and Q should be careful translations of the words you are using. I hope this is a useful start, but I think we'll need some greater clarification of the idea before we can really examine it in detail.

Your book may be great, but as they say, "Marketing is everything". (I struggle with this myself)

So what does your book give us? If you could sum up why we should read your book, what new insights can we glean? Is there an overall message? A theme that courses through the book to the end?

Its definitely sad, but no one can say she didn't live a meaningful life. I honestly see nothing wrong with a "conservative" judge if they are a good judge. The nice thing about being assigned to life on the supreme court is you don't have to think politically anymore. You are free to judge as the philosopher's do.

Then please explain using logico deductive reasoning; driving while daydreaming and being in a coma, living yet not living. — 3017amen

Certainly. I will use the terms in the paper. Please feel free to critique and ask questions if something does not make sense.

When using subjective deduction, we realize that if we applicably know one thing, we can use that as a basis for greater knowledge. The most simple example of this is math. As we applicably know that numbers are deduced by discrete experience, they follow the logic of discrete experience. So if I know that I can create "an" identity, or the number one, then I can also create 2 identities, and examine the logic between the two.

Recall the point in which we can examine a field of grass, a blade of grass, or even a portion of the grass as a discrete experience. What this lets us do is affirm that if I create an identity of one blade of grass, and another blade of grass together in my mind, I now have 2 blades of grass. With this logic, I can build algebra, calculus, and all other math.

This applies to knowledge outside of math as well. Let us apply this to driving.

So first, I need the distinctive knowledge within a specific context of what "driving" is. As you can see here, the term, "Driving" has evolved over the years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving So we don't want to take the term used in the 1800's, but the term used today.

Now because you are also chatting with me, we both have to agree on the context of the word as well. So we must both be happy with this definition before we try to apply it. I will propose the definition, feel free to add or detract from it in your reply.

Lets start with driving as, "steer, guide, navigate" in regards to a motor vehicle. The vehicle in this case is a car. We will also now need a few other definitions. Consciousness, and daydreaming. Consciousness can be defined as our personal awareness and agency. I can consciously think about the words I'm typing, wondering if the word "expeditious" is spelled correctly. The unconscious happens outside of my awareness or focus. For example, I don't think about where the letters that make up "is" resides on the keyboard anymore, and I type it without thinking about it at all.

Of course, maybe that's not fully conscious, or unconscious. Because there are other aspects of the body that I have no agency over at all. I cannot will my digestion to alter, or my kidneys to do a better or worse job of filtration. Some might call this unconscious, but perhaps a better term would be "autonomous". These are functions that are outside of our conscious capability.

Ok, with this established we can more clearly state that consciousness is our agency, and unconscious actions happen outside of our agency, but we could put our focus on them and regain conscious control over them at any time.

That's the first definition. We are going to use that to build into daydreaming, so make sure consciousness is well defined for you first. Now daydreaming is a state of emulated sensory imagination. It is interesting, because we do not have to have conscious focus on our senses at all times. Many times I find I am not conscious of the temperature, or seeing what is in front of my face. Basically this becomes an "unconscious" (as defined here) process.

There is usually the implicit notion that when daydreaming, we are consciously aware of it. For all we know, daydreams and processes are constantly firing in our head, and we are only aware of them when we focus on them. But regardless, I think for your purposes you would like daydreaming to be the conscious focus. If we daydream an emulation of something visual, we tend to focus our consciousness away from what is in front of our eyes. At least, I do. At this point our visual processing becomes unconscious.

Back to driving. Can we drive unconsciously? Yes. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sleepless-in-america/200812/can-people-drive-while-asleep
There are several instances of people driving while sleep walking. As literal "daydreaming" as you can get! At this point, the consciousness has no awareness or control, so it must be that the person is driving unconsciously.

With all of these definitions and bits of applicable knowledge set up, now we just piece them together in a way that avoids a contradiction.

1. We applicably know people can drive while sleeping, so people can drive unconsciously.
2. We distinctively know the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness.
3. If a person is daydreaming, we assume their consciousness if focussed on that daydream.
4. If their consciousness is not focused on driving, yet they are still driving, it must be they are driving unconsciously.
5. If they wreck while daydreaming as stated above, then they wrecked while driving unconsciously. Their unconscious driving failed to handle the challenges of the road.
6. There is no contradiction in having one's consciousness focused elsewhere while the unconscious mind processes other functions.
7. Therefore there is no contradiction if a person crashes while daydreaming.

There's your start! So feel free to break it down and show where we have disagreements. Appreciate the conversation as always 3017Amen!

A good point. While yes, at the end we all die, it is the measure of the life that we live that will be different. If you are person born in a wealthy country, and have the intelligence and connections to gain wealth, you live a great life before your death.

Those who are born in war torn countries with no opportunity for wealth or peace, live lives far less then the fortunate. It is a good reminder. While people may believe there is something after this life, there is only us to help each other in this life.

But we can't know it through deduction. — 3017amen

Knowing by application is knowing by deduction. I would read parts 2, 3, and 4 if you want to understand it all. Part1 is only a primer, and is only a small portion of the argument. Don't worry, they're all about the same length.

Would that mean you agree that deduction cannot adequately describe ontology/conscious existence? — 3017amen

No, deduction can adequately describe ontology or conscious existence without issue. It is all about defining it, then applying it.

All of the above, including all such tenants of philosophical idealism. — 3017amen

But these are actually different definitions of consciousness within different contexts. Again, you'll need to read through part 3.

Deductive logic has taught us consciousness cannot be explained. — 3017amen

How is this so? Perhaps if you show me, I will be able to explain it within the terms I've put forward.

But if you wouldn't mind, please read the rest 3017Amen. With this theory, I can answer virtually any knowledge question you ever ask.

This thinking can come about because you are leaning greater weight on the doubt then what you see before you.

Why should you believe the doubt you have? If you do not exist, what is the alternative? You can doubt anything. I can doubt that unicorn's don't exist. It isn't worth anything though without some evidence. You know what existence is. You don't know what non-existence is. Why do you lend credence to doubt what you do know, for something you don't know?

The difference between a paradox and a poorly constructed sentence can be tricky. A paradox would be the result of a logical concept taken to its conclusion. For example, someone is able to time travel, and ends up accidently killing their mother before they were born. A paradox denotes something can happen, but if something is done within that action, it could negate the possibility of being able to do that action to begin with. This is a contradiction, but it is a contradiction that states limits within action A that do not allow it to do action B.

A poorly constructed sentence is written as a contradiction. Poor sentences often come about because there is implicit cultural understanding that confuses the issue. That's why I broke the sentences down into explicit parts, removing the implicit assumptions that muddy the waters.

If you are saying that he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, and also himself, then its fine. If you say that he shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves, and himself, even though he doesn't shave himself, then its a contradiction. We can remove the first part about "other people", because its unnecessary. You cannot both shave, and not shave yourself. That's the contradiction, not a paradox. If you include a contradiction with extra sentence combinations, it still doesn't negate the fact of the contradiction.

That sounds like a subjective truth. A truth that relates to me and no other object. For example if I have a will to be or a will to exist, what deduction is required for the will? — 3017amen

No, knowledge is not a claim to the truth. Knowledge is a methodology that to our understanding, will have the best hopes of obtaining the truth. Have you read part 2 and 3? (Almost no one has, lol. I take no offense). They introduce the idea of context through other subjects.

Since you've read part 1 at least, you can go back to the first part and show how will is a deduction through an understanding of discrete experience. I note that a "will" is a desire, and an action for that desire to happen. That is the distinctive knowledge we have introduced. If we agree upon it within our context, then we attempt to apply that knowledge. I find I can will to type an answer using a keyboard. Reality does not contradict me. I can will to fly with my mind alone, but reality contradicts me. As long as the application of our definition for will is not contradicted, we can know will by application.

It seems to me you're making a case for subjective idealism. — 3017amen

No, I am not stating that only ourselves exist. In part 2, I go over that very briefly at the start by explaining what an "I" is, and showing that other people are other "I"s.

Since your holy grail is deduction, the consequence of such methodology in exploring or describing a particular truth value is tantamount to logical impossibility, when applied to the nature of a thing. — 3017amen

Deduction does not prove something to be true. But it is the most rational method of matching to truth, if what we know is true. I go over that in part 4 with inductions. We cannot prove something to be true through knowledge. We can only show that knowledge is a logical methodology that holds conclusions which have not yet been contradicted by reality. As long as reality does not contradict knowledge, then it is rational to hold such a viewpoint as being the best fit for what is true.

If you have a handle on these concepts, then I can go into consciousness. First, consciousness must be defined. Is is the consciousness of the poets, the consciousness of science, or something else entirely? This establishes the contextual distinctive knowledge. Once that is done, we apply it. If we can apply it without contradiction from reality, then we can say within our context, that we know what consciousness is. If we cannot apply it without contradiction, then we cannot applicably know consciousness within our distinctive context.

What can be concluded is that a contradiction of terms within our distinctive knowledge, or "definition" in this case, means it is not distinctive knowledge. It is a mere belief. And if one cannot apply that definition to reality without a contradiction, it is not applicable knowledge, just a mere applicable belief.

There is nothing wrong with positing your ideas, as long as they are logical. I view science as taking words that we know, and testing them against reality. Philosophy is more like taking the concepts that we have a nebulous understanding of, and using words to describe them in a logical and useful manner.

If you receive hostility from certain people, ignore them. You cannot please everyone in life, and people bring their own baggage and ego to discussions where it does not belong. You will find plenty who wish to engage with you with respect.

First, high and low IQ are not necessarily good judges of a person's competence in a particular area. One could be a genius cook for example, and a terrible artist. Its best just to ask questions without loaded words like IQ. In the end, the person's IQ doesn't matter, just the answer.

First, lets look at your interpretation:

I am suggesting that if entropy is the predominant force then enformy is humanities' response to it therefore the underlying dynamics are a consequence of entropy — Spartacus

Entropy is the law of nature that pressures all heat to an equilibrium. Basically, the universe trends to spread all matter and energy out equally. While humanity fights entropy, we don't need to go that high up. We can just look at life itself. Life is not separate from matter and energy, it is simply another expression of matter and energy like the sun combusting.

The difference between life and the sun is that the sun will eventually run out of energy, and it does not seek to replenish that energy. A life will run out of energy, but it actively seeks to replenish that energy.

So I'm not sure if humanity or life is a microcosm of entropy, but simply an example of actively resisting entropy, or doing enformy as you so put. Perhaps a microcosm of entropy would be chemical reactions that burn themselves out, like the sun. Does this answer your question?

The trick in the sentence is that it implies its talking about people other than himself. If we put the true intention of the sentence together we get:

The barber only shaves others who do not shave themselves.

Now, if we add in the idea that this also includes him, there is no paradox, we just realize the sentence contains a contradiction.

The barber only shaves others who do not shave themselves. The barber also shaves himself, because he does not shave himself.

The first sentence makes sense. The second sentence, which was attempted to be placed implicitly within the OP's sentence, reveals itself to be a nonsense statement when made implicit. If you combine the first and the second sentence together, then the contradictory part of the second sentence makes the combined sentence false, but not a paradox.

The attachment uses a concept called "subjective deduction." Is that your theory or way of combining both a priori and a posteriori kinds of reasoning in an all inclusive way for gaining knowledge and wisdom? (And or perhaps combining subjective truths and objective truths.) — 3017amen

I have had people use the a priori and a posteriori words to relate before, and it has often caused them to misunderstand the points. Subjective deduction is really the best summary of what knowledge is. The "subjective" depends on the subjects involved. This may be the self, or the context of friends, scientists, the world, etc.

However, I do have two terms that mirror the priori duo. Distinctive knowledge, or the knowledge of one's discrete experiences, is similar to a priori. Applicable knowledge is similar to a posteriori. In either case, knowledge is not a claim of truth. Knowledge is a claim of deduction. While a deduction may not be the truth, if we were to find and be certain of the truth, it would most likely come from a deduction, and not an induction.

So to your summary, it is near the mark. Just know that these are not a priori and a posteriori as fully defined. Feel free to ask on anything else, I will do my best to clarify the definitions or simplify any arguments I've put forth here.

Actually, this may be a good time to get on another thread as we had discussed. I have a thread on knowledge here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge So far it hasn't garnered much discussion beyond a few troll posts, but I know you'll take the conversation seriously. Here you'll get to see what I mean by stating the a priori and a posteriori distinction (depending on how they are defined) are false dichotomies. Its also the perfect place to discuss what is logical and illogical. I should have though about it sooner. =P See you there!

My words were not an invitation to discussion. They were a voice from the community that you might want to remember in your behavior going forward. If the mods remove this topic, you will have a reason apart from theirs to mull over.

1. If you have a suggestion for the moderators, then you can message them. Publicly attacking a segment of people who visit this forum in one unedited and bolded paragraph is not inviting a conversation, it is a rant. That is NOT philosophy.

2. The philosophy of religion has a long history. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/
Read here if you are interested. They are not hijacking philosophy, and they have their own section on the forum.

3. If you don't like people posting philosophy of religion, then don't partake in them. If they come in your threads which have nothing to do with religion, then feel free to not respond.

I'm speaking common sense — JerseyFlight

No. You are not. You are speaking your anger and frustration that you cannot control what other people think and do. That is not philosophy. That is not common sense. I do not know what happened to you to be so angry and controlling, but you need to learn to deal with that before you try to solve anyone else's problems.

If you feel your post deletion was a mistake, then you should be privately reaching out to the mods. No one here can confirm what your post actually was, and what they were thinking.

I think you did a nice job Emma. Good luck in your pursuit of the degree!

Thank you for a nicely written post! First, let me say that while I will critique the argument, please understand this is not out of malice, an agenda, or with the feeling that you are "stupid, foolish", or what have you. It takes intelligence and a curious mind to think on such arguments. I would also invite that if this argument is shown to have flaws, this does not discount your belief in Christ. So with that in mind, lets see if there are holes in this argument.

1. There is an implicit assumption that we all believe the bible to be a true and accurate statement to reality

Now if you believe that the bible is inerrant and accurate evidence, then this is not a problem. But it is a very important key in the argument you present. For example, many people consider the Koran, the holy book of Islam, to be an accurate testament to the history and events of the time. It has prophecy that has been claimed to have been fulfilled, and even predicted scientific theories like evolution before they were made. https://rationalreligion.co.uk/9-scientific-miracles-of-the-quran (for citation).

Now I'm not saying this because I want you to believe the Koran. I'm using this because I know you don't believe the Koran. So if I told you that there were followers of Muhammad who believed in his words so much that they willingly fought and died for him, does that mean their belief in the Koran indicates that it is actually true?

2. Intense belief must be backed by equally sufficient evidence. — Josh Vasquez

Unfortunately, this example proves that this statement is not true. There are people who have incredibly intense belief in the Koran. To the point where they have died for it. But we both do not believe that the Koran is accurate correct? We can conclude then that the intensity of belief does not have anything to do with the accuracy of the belief.

Taking this idea outside of religion, we can see this remains true as well. I can look up at the sky and see that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West. It is incontrovertible. From this observation, the only logical conclusion (if I know nothing of space) is that the Sun revolves around the Earth. To believe otherwise, would be foolish no? But because we do know about space, we realize my belief is wrong.

So lets start with that for now. Do the points make sense? Do you believe I've made an error? Again, I welcome the discussion with all respect given.

Ahh, but what moves wisdom forward? Wisdom itself? How is wisdom advanced, and for what purpose? Something beyond pure reason, you think? Please share your thoughts. Those answers are important. — 3017amen

A good question. I believe wisdom is the realization of reality as much as humans can comprehend it. I believe the motivation to find wisdom can be many things. Some people have an innate desire to simply know the reality of a situation. Some want to know what to do with their lives going forward. Some need it for utility. After all, if you have a solid understanding of reality, you are able to much better predict and shape it into what you want.

Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. — 3017amen

This is a general descriptor that unfortunately does not answer what it means to have sense, or clear sound reasoning.

Sound reasoning can be summarized as "Holding non-contradictory thoughts". In philosophy, were we are looking for exactness, This means A != A is illogical. A compared to A, is an identical identity to the smallest unit of measurement. A !=99.99999999% match to A is not illogical, but logical. This is because there is a difference between both A's, within a certain unit of measurement. In general language, we often use very broad terms that mean different things in different contexts. So we may use something like, "A birch and a redwood are both trees. In this sense, they belong to a broader term, so we can say,
Birch = tree && Redwood = tree. But we can't say, Birch = Redwood in the technical sense, because they aren't a 100% exact match.

In another sense, we lower the exactness needed. I can say two pieces of cut metal are 1 meter long if I don't care about it being off by a millimeter, and I can say "They are equal in regards to the context of a meter". If however I care about millimeters, "They are not equal in regards to the context of millimeters".

So love then. It depends on the context of love that you speak of. It depends by what you mean when you say its irrational. To be irrational, there must be a comparison to something. Saying love is irrational without comparing it to something, is like saying, "A birch tree is wrong". Wrong how? Irrational how? That's the technicalities of philosophy. A large part of it is diving into the language, finding idosynchrasies in conclusions, and trying to make the implicit underlying assumptions of the topic, explicit to reveal where these idosynchrasies come from.

I actually do not believe in the distinction between a priori and a posteriori. Well again, based on how you define it. These are terms that have been battered about by Quine and several other philosophers for years. I find I don't need them as distinctions either to think logically. So when I think of consciousness, I do not think it is illogical, because I find no contradiction in the existence of consciousness within reality. As for the actual inner workings of consciousness, not knowing, does not mean it is illogical. For years people did not understand what the Sun was, or how it worked. That did not make the existence of the Sun illogical.

As for philosophical guesses at consciousness, I believe it is moving out of our hands. We must look to neuroscience for answers, and can postulate on that. For example, https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-think-they-ve-pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness#:~:text=Researchers%20have%20long%20thought%20that,work%20together%20to%20form%20consciousness . here you can read about Harvard reasearchers who believe they have identified where consciousness is developed and handled in the brain.

Sorry if it was a bit long! I will look for any posts you have started if you want to carry on the conversation elsewhere.

I believe you are unfortunately repeating old paradigms that I seem to recognize as a far-right fundamentalist ideology. I hope I'm wrong there — 3017amen

Lol, no, I mentioned these archtypes as warnings about using illogical thinking. Perhaps it was a poor idea. My intent was to ask you if you had thought about whether using illogical thinking was a good idea, even if it could give you an answer (not a logical one of course) that you desired.

I have a feeling our differences are in the definition of illogical. Typically in the context of philosophy, one of the basic definitions of illogical, is concluding something wrong in regards to equivalence. By equivalence, I mean equal down to the very tiniest part of the context and meaning behind the statement. I feel that when you are referring to illogical, you are doing it in a context beyond philosophy where equivalence is not the focus, but "Almost or similarly equivalent".

So yes, outside of philosophy when people say, "Love is illogical," I understand the context is one of sentiment, not equivalence. Within philosophy, love is not illogical, unless it has been proven to be illogical. Of course, the context of what "Love" is may also differ. Romantic love, love for your fellow man, and love for your enemies can all be variations of love that may or may not be illogical if examined in an atomic context.

There is nothing wrong with using language in a loose manner to describe sentiment such as awe, wonder, etc. But philosophy is not "the love of sentiment" it is the "the love of wisdom". Wisdom requires tight definitions and logical conclusions. The sentimental arguments are concerned with working through our emotions, and can serve that purpose well. Budah claimed it was not the fundamental questions of the universe people were asking that needed to be answered, it was simply a matter of the heart and an emotional need that needed to be fulfilled first.

If you like I will ague that from our thinking, and sensory perceptions, we have contradictory, illogical components to them. — 3017amen

If you believe that you can argue about such ideas within the context of logic and illogic within the context of philosophy, then feel free! If it is a matter of sentiment, poetry, and is not willing to drill down into its atomic parts, then there is no need. I have no questions of matters of the heart at this time in my life, only matters of logic. Feel free to start the thread as I would not be sure where to even begin. I will keep an eye out and join you there.

I would say that whether something is reasonable isnt based on what it concludes but rather the reasoning itself.
One could be and atheist for poor reasons, and accurately be called unreasonable even though they reached the right conclusion (atheism). Likewise with theism if you think theism is true, one could have poor reasons and be right by accident.
Its not the conclusion that can be measured by reason, its the process that can be measured by reason. — DingoJones

Seconded.

Irrational??? There are lots of Christians on here and I do not cater to their sophistry. This is no more a crime than resisting those who try to promote the existence of faeries or unicorns.

I reject your false moralism that elevates error and delusion to a level of deserving intellectual respect. I deny this, and not only deny it, but will continue to deal critically with these sophists. — JerseyFlight

The OP asked why you posted on this forum. You replied with people who you don't interact with in this forum. If you had stated you posted to argue with Christians, it would have made sense. But instead you out of your way to point out those you avoid posting against on the forums. Your irrationality is not your personal beliefs about Christianity, or your need to critique it where appropriate. The mention was off topic and unneeded.

Its like a person coming into a topic that has nothing to do with God, but tries to insert God into the conversation. If a Christian came into this topic and stated,

"There is nothing better for a person of faith, in developing his thought, than to go up against a quality contrary intelligence. One cannot replicate this vital negativity themselves. However, it can actually be degenerative to go up against faithless thinkers because they drive the emphasis away from intelligence. In this case, one is not necessarily progressing but regressing. This is why I don't suffer the stupidity of atheists, their emphasis is nonsense."

...I would have, (and have in the past) pointed out the same flaws in their post.

Whether you realize it or not (we often do not realize these things in ourselves), you are simply expressing the other side of the same coin that those who are overzealous for Christianity often times do. Were you a Christian one time, or were raised in a Christian home? I have run across many fellow atheists over the years, and the ones who have the need to prosthelytize their disdain and distaste for Christianity in such ways are often still carrying a wound that has not healed from their personal experiences within Christianity.

You have my apologies for having received so much help from you and for not returning it in equal measure; please understand that given my alternative commitments, I have a limited amount of time to dedicate to philosophy and have the need to focus almost all of it into my own work given its subject and scope. — TVCL

Not a worry! This was your thread, not mine. The intention was mostly to show you a different approach, and that I took the topic seriously. I had a lot of enjoyment going over your work, it was not time wasted.

What I might ask - if your still willing - is to double-check the "chapters" of my argument as and when I complete them with the understanding that this may be over a period of some time. How does that sound to you? — TVCL

Absolutely. I would like to see where you take this further. And good luck on your new career! I'm glad we were able to get this to a nice conclusion in time. I wish you well, and it will always be a pleasure to speak with you on these forums. If I am not around these forums at a later date, feel free to message me directly.

However, it can actually be degenerative to go up against unskilled thinkers because they drive the emphasis away from intelligence. In this case, one is not necessarily progressing but regressing. This is why I don't suffer the stupidity of Christians, their emphasis is nonsense. — JerseyFlight

Perhaps before pointing out the splinter in another's eye, you should remove the plank from your own first. A paraphrase from Mathew 7:5, and an interesting point you might want to consider. A skilled thinker welcomes, and is able to speak with, "the unskilled". Arguably, the mark of a skilled thinker is one who can think effectively in most situations, not simply a certain prescribed environment. They welcome challenges to their line of thought, and are always open to having their mind changed.

Further, an attitude of dismissal can quickly bring you to ruin. It becomes all too easy to write off those who disagree with you as "unskilled" because they just don't see your personal brilliance. Your own mind will try to trick you of its own greatness so it does not have to think to hard on its own conclusions. It is intellectual laziness and ego. A good thinker realizes this, and stays vigilant against these types of thoughts. We should speak to all types of people, not only those we deem, "worthy", because we all too easily can narrow our scope to that which we find comfortable to us.

Finally, you let your anger betray your desire to be a rational thinker. There was no need to place your distaste of Christian's to the OP's question. It was an irrational addition. Anger and dislike can be motivators in our discussions, but they shouldn't cause us to need to insert our own agenda in discussions that have nothing to do with them. If your anger against Christianity is causing you to make such mistakes, maybe its something you should take some time to get a handle on.

I'm wondering what your encounters with older people are like. =) Older people are just like everyone else, except they've had more experience in the world. Some people use this experience to become better people. Some use it to become worse. Some just never change.

Let us take this idea. When matter first sprang, much of it disappeared. The claim is that matter and both antimatter collided and cancelled much of it out. Another thing to think on is simply that much matter simply ceased to be over the years.

The matter and energy that remains is that which insists on being. It combines, uncombines, and expresses itself in different ways. But at its core, it continues to exist, and express its existence in different ways.

You are not separate from this. You are made up of this matter and energy for a short period of time. You have the special expression of self awareness. Much like a person born to wealthy parents, you won the cosmological lottery. So if you are to follow what you are made up of, you should exist. Be what you are. Express your uniqueness and being while you live. Do not cease if you can help it. That is your purpose, and nothing more.

Ok. So I think you see where I'm coming from, and I also think I see where you are beginning to come from. You seem to be implying that illogical thinking is a solution to problems. Not the only solution mind you, but depending on how you are defining it, you can come to an illogical conclusion.

To think illogically is to hold contradictions. It is to believe in something that is impossible to exist. It your choice to believe such things. I however, cannot. To me, any time I encounter a contradiction, I know I have done something wrong in my thinking. It could be my understanding, my definitions, or just simply reality not adding up as I intended.

While you can choose how to think in life, I would caution against applying illogical thinking to God. If God exists, it is not a contradiction. God is not illogical, and the things which would extend from God, are not illogical either. Illogical Gods are the fictional myths of Cu'Thulu for example. They are seen as villians and the patron deities of irrational cults. Irrationality is often seen as madness. The Christian God never processes to be illogical. Mysterious? Yes. Beyond our complete understanding? Yes. But there is the underlying idea that there is a plan, an order, and a logic of good that God understands in their plan for humanity.

This is evidenced by then 10 commandments. Simple, logical laws that define how a person should live. Jesus acted with a logical intent. While some who did not understand why Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross might call him mad, when understood it is logical.

It is not that I think you are mad, it is dipping your toe into illogical thinking is to speak with madness itself. It is the realms of cults, and evil. I think you are dipping into illogical thinking in your zeal for understanding what is simply outside of our bounds of knowledge. You are looking for a solution when the only answer is, "I don't know." It is ok to realize the limits of what we can know. It is ok to believe in a God when we do not know all of the answers. But I feel dipping into illogic to get such answer is a road to hell paved with good intentions.

There is the longstanding issue of the mods and admins preferring and even enforcing certain styles and points of view. That's a real thing. Posting here is, as the saying goes, not a right but a privilege. — Srap Tasmaner

There is also a long standing history of trolls and misbehaving people who get their posts revoked, who then go and complain about how unfair it is. Legitimate posters who have been revoked politely talk to the mods and do not make public posts whining. Trolls do. I see such public posts as little evidence of abuse by the mods.

Personally, I think we should ignore such things. It shouldn't be the number of posts, it should be the quality of posts. It shouldn't be the number of mentions, it should be the quality of mentions. We are discussing philosophy where shows of status or symbols of superiority should be discouraged.

So I had a friend years ago that was a petroleum engineer. He explained to me that shutting a refinery off is incredibly expensive and dangerous. Due to the nature of the substance, its best when its in a constantly heated and flowing stated in many parts.

The industry knows exactly what it is doing. It is much likely more expensive at this time to shut things down and turn them back on in a few months. They are likely making the correct bet that demand will rise again. Yes, they won't be making as much money as they were for a while, but its probably far better than the cost of shutting down production altogether.

Ok, I think the issue here is your use of logic can I think be replaced by "knowledge". Its not that consciousness is illogical, its that we don't fully understand how it works. Consciousness is logical, because it exists. If consciousness both existed, and did not exist, then it would be illogical.

Saying something exists does not necessitate that we explain why or how it exists. It is only illogical if its existence would contradict something that we already know must exist. Something can be true, and something can be false. But if A != B, both A and B cannot be true. That's all logic is. Its just a recognition of impossibility in one's conclusions.

Perhaps if you changed your word choice, you would not encounter issues. Few people would take issue with, "We do not know how consciousness works." But when you claim its illogical, what you are saying is that consciousness both exists, and does not exist. Apart from poetics as discussed, that won't convince many people to listen. If you are interested in spreading your belief about God, you want as many people who will listen as possible.

To conclude, when you say things like, "logically impossible attributes exist", you are conveying something which itself, cannot exist. If it is logically impossible, then exists in both a state of truth, and falsity. You can't state it exists, because, it also does not exist. And at that point, we aren't talking about anything real. If you state instead, "there are attributes that we do not yet, or may never fully understand", I think you'll find a lot more reception to your ideas.

Those are my thoughts anyway. Enjoy the Friday 3017amen, I know I am!