"Dating"? Are you familiar with process theology?

Atheism can just be a way to shift from eternal , changeless verities to an attitude that is more fluid, creative and adaptive to change. In that way it wards off nihilism by embracing new values and meanings. In fact it can thrive on approaching a world that is overflowing with constantly changing value, rather than relying on one static truth. — Joshs

This is fine except that theism is not at all necessarily "one static truth".

:up:

If something is "beyond the limits of reason" then how can you expect to draw reasonable conclusions about it?

So, while I have no argument against those who feel they can commit to a belief either way, I disagree with those who insist that only one can be true, or who form arguments either way on logical grounds. It’s a pointless exercise, in ignorance of their affected position - the arbitrary commitment (of attention and effort) they have made in relation to a paradox. — Possibility

Pretty much my position exactly, nicely put!

You say that if you are agnostic, if you have no belief either way regarding the existence of God, then from that starting position you can choose to believe one way or the other based on considerations of happiness and health, or in other words, flourishing.

But could you. pragmatically starting out from a genuine agnosticism, arrive at a genuine belief either way? I doubt it; I think the best that could be arrived at from that starting point would be a decision to commit to "thinking and acting as if"; the entertaining of a kind of provisional hypothesis that one stipulates shall not be provisional (or necessarily entertaining).

On the other hand you could go with your intuitions in the matter, if your rational deliberations have led you to agnosticism; you could choose to be moved, as you can be by art, to the entertainment of a fantasy, only in this case it is a fantasy to which you have granted lifelong commitment (at least for now). Sounds like fun; I might try it one day!

The conclusion was that agnosticism is valid, not that it is reasonable. — Banno

If validity is the logical following of conclusion from premise, and the premise is lack of evidence either way, then agnosticism is indeed the most reasonable position to hold. Unfortunately many people cannot be comfortable with the realization that they don't know, so they contrive to pretend that they can and do know, and thus we have theists and atheists, and the constant arguing and carping ad nauseum between them. This annoying argumentation inevitably happens as each thinks they must be right, and cannot countenance the disagreement of others because it makes them feel insecure..

First, we should not expect reality to accord with the way we understand things. The way we understand things changes over time. Second, substance dualism is not the basic way we understand things. — Fooloso4

That is not a relevant critique of the argument. First, the basic way we understand things (property dualism) does not change over time. Second, the argument does not claim that substance dualism is the basic way we understand things, but that it is reasonable to infer it from the fact that the basic way we understand things (property dualism) does not change over time.

And if we count our learned cultures as part of ourselves, then yes in that sense modern post-industrial people are better at living than hunter-gatherers, since our populations are larger and our lifespans are longer, often at the expense of peoples who still practice the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. — Pfhorrest

Oh well, your idea of what it means to live better is obviously very different from mine.

So forms of matter that are better at living become more common over time. — Pfhorrest

I think this does not follow. Lifeforms always simply adapt or fail to adapt to changing circumstances. Your assertion would have us being better at living than hunter/gatherers, which I think is patently false; if anything I would lean towards the opposite conclusion.

Right. That is my point. Someone who posits substance dualism must first provide an argument with enough merit in order to expect someone else to argue against it. I will leave it up to the members here to decide for themselves whether that has been done. — Fooloso4

Right, so if it is the case that the only argument for substance dualism is that we ought to expect reality to accord with the basic ways we understand things, or perhaps better, we should expect the basic ways we understand things to reflect reality, would you consider that an argument with merit, and if so how would you go about arguing against it?

Why would you bother arguing against a claim that you thought had no merit?

so it is true that I believe there is no God. — Tom Storm

OK, good, you hadn't stated that clearly before, and that does make a difference.

I have heard no reasons to accept the proposition that a God exists. So I don't believe in God. But I cannot say that I know God does not exist. Show me how belief and knowledge can't be separate things. — Tom Storm

It's nothing to do with conflating belief and knowledge. Have you heard reasons to accept the proposition that God does not exist? Do believe there is no God?

I am asking why you think it is necessary to argue against a claim for which there is not good reason to think it might be true — Fooloso4

You don't, unless you think there is good reason to think it might not be true.

You need to add E:

E) after considering the issue, one finds it impossible to form an opinion (in effect, this is lack of belief; the very act of considering the issue has rendered it undecidable, moot).

This is a possible natural, organic consequence of having thought and read and discussed about the issue a lot, from different perspectives. — baker

Yes, that is a significant, and on an uncharitable reading, tendentious omission on the part of the @Banno!

I don't believe in a God, but I do not know that god doesn't exist. — Tom Storm

You are either convinced of something or you are not. I am not convinced a God exists. That's the belief part taken care of for me. — Tom Storm

You say you don't believe in a God, but you do you disbelieve in a God? You say you are not convinced a God exists, but are you convinced a God does not exist?

The important difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the former is convinced that a God does not exist.

I don't know what you think you're disagreeing with. Epistemology is based on the recognition that our understanding is dualistic; which is what I said.

As Searle said, the man on the street is a Cartesian. You're barking up the wrong tree.

What's the draw of property dualism? It takes a tiny bit of philomind to answer that. Last time I talked to 180 he came up pretty short in that area, so I don't expect much

We are all property dualists insofar as we recognize two basic kinds of action or process; the mental and the physical. As @180 Proof says, this is an epistemological, not a metaphysical or ontological, statement since it is referring to our ways of understanding the world.

Substance dualism makes a further claim that the fact that we understand things in these different ways (conceiving of the mental and the physical) indicates the existence or reality of distinct substances. This is pure speculation or reification based on believing in our intuitions.

It is not that one or the other (PD or SD) is the more useful, since PD has already fulfilled the purpose of recognizing that we do in fact understand things in these two different general ways, and SD adds no further use. Since it is a metaphysical icing atop the methodological cake; thus being pure sugar it adds only a little extra flavour, but no additional nutrition (use)..

If others didn't exist you wouldn't have language or science or philosophy or any form of culture; you would have nothing to do except try to survive, — Janus

I think he means in the case of a zombie apocalypse or something, where you’re the only one left alive who’s meaning doesn’t center exclusively on eating brains. — praxis

Perhaps that is what he had in mind. If so, I don't see that scenario being much different: I doubt he would have the time or resources to do much but struggle to survive; his "meaning" would center almost exclusively on avoiding having his brains eaten.

A soundly founded move then I guess!

Thanks. That's a surprise! What prompted that decision?

Does anyone know why the numbers that indicate individuals' total numbers of posts have changed and now seem to show no rhyme or reason?

If others didn't exist you wouldn't have language or science or philosophy or any form of culture; you would have nothing to do except try to survive,

If meaningful interpersonal connections are the only meaning of life, then a life without any interpersonal connections is totally meaningless. — Kaveski

What about connections to other things; animals, environments, creative pursuits, are they not meaningful?

learning things, and achieving things, which you can do even if nobody else exists. — Pfhorrest

How could you learn things and achieve things if no one else existed?

If there were white triangles and you could remove all observers then there would be still be (unobserved) white triangles. How could it be otherwise if there were in the first place white triangles to be observed, and not they, but only the observers, were removed? Do you really believe that if you made a white triangle and put it in a room where no one could see it, that it would therefore disappear?

My point would be clearer to you, if you could see that Mind & Body appear different to the observer, even though they ultimately consist of the same "stuff". — Gnomon

I don't agree that mind consists of any "stuff" I see mind as an activity of the living human body, just as running, walking, sitting, digestion and so on, are. Those activities do not consist of any "stuff", and I think likewise of mind.

And that debate has exercised scientists and philosophers for at least 2500 years. — Gnomon

Yes, and on account of that it's well past its 'use by' date.

It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this. — Janus

Au contraire! Lots of scientists have shed much ink on this very subject. And many scientists, and physicalist philosophers heatedly deny that there is any such thing as immaterial Minds and metaphysical Consciousness. They are just names for imaginary fairly tales. — Gnomon

Scientists having something to say is not the same as science having something to say on the matter.

My belief system is not religious, and not a matter of faith. — Gnomon

If no unequivocal empirical evidence for your belief system or it is not logically necessary, then it is a matter of faith if you actually believe in it, or it may be a matter of conjecture if you merely hold it provisionally. On the other hand if a conjecture, or hypothesis is not susceptible of empirical verification /falsification, even in principle, as is the case with metaphysical speculations, then it is either a matter of faith or else simply something you entertain for amusement or poetic purposes.

If there were no observers there would be no observations of white triangles; that seems obvious and I see no reason to assert any more than that.

Sure you need an observer to observe something.

Reason constructs them for us, probably just so we don’t waste time trying to figure out what the picture might represent if the oddball stuff wasn’t consolidated into something residing in intuition already. — Mww

I'd say it is more the capacity for pattern recognition that makes us see the triangles than it is reason. I wonder how much of the boundary would need to be missing and how minimal the cues would need to be in order for us to fail to recognize the triangle shape?

Not only that, but notice that we don’t intuit those things that look like cheese wheels with a wedge taken out, as fully formed circles. Yet we intuit an undefined empty space as a fully formed triangle. — Mww

I think that's because there are not multiple points that define and locate a boundary.

What are you afraid of, that makes you proud to avoid metaphysical "assumptions" like "Mind is not the same thing as Matter"? — Gnomon

I haven't said that mind is the same thing as matter. Horses are not the same things as trees, and so on; but what point do you really want to make?

Do you "assume" that there is no difference between res extensa and res cogitans, because to open that Pandora's Box would put you on the slippery slope to religious heresy against the authority of Science? — Gnomon

You don't believe in res extensa and res cogitans if you are, as you have avowed, not a metaphysical substance dualist. I follow Spinoza in thinking that the ideas of extensa and cogitans merely represent two perspectives on things.

It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this.

Should philosophers be barred from examining what makes conscious matter different from non-conscious matter? — Gnomon

You are being alarmist: I haven't spoken about barring anyone from anything, but just saying how I think about these issues. I wonder why you are acting in such a defensive way. I have noticed on these forums that those who are most entranced by these, what I see as incoherent, polemics, seem to have dogs in the race; and they seem to think that the issues around idealism versus materialism are of real metaphysical and/ or religious import, and this thinking seems to stem from either their attachment to, or rejection of, religious thinking.

Personally I think it's fine to be religious or not, it's a personal matter of choice, but I really don't see anything worthy of arguing about. The arguments on both sides are just dumb, based on reification from both sides and just go around the same boring circles ad nauseum. The arguments on both sides, in my opinion, are so poor they are not worth the effort to criticize; it's the arguing itself that warrants criticism.

Do you see the white triangle with your mental imagination or with your physical eye? Is the meaning of the word "see" the same in either case? — Gnomon

I see both the white and black triangles on the screen. Both triangles have portions of their boundaries missing. Beyond that I don't know what you are asking, or what you think you are trying to prove.

Not much point saying that unless you (can) point to the contradiction. — Janus


It's our little secret! G'day — TheMadFool

No, Master Fool, it's your little secret; I have no idea what you think the contradiction is.

Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile: — Gnomon

It's not clear to me what point you are trying to make.

You're contradicting yourself! No harm though! — TheMadFool

Not much point saying that unless you (can) point to the contradiction.

1. If x is nonphysical then x violates physical laws — TheMadFool

This is a mere assumption not any kind of absolute logical entailment or truth. Physical laws (if they exist), by definition, govern the physical, and have no necessary relation to the non-physical (however that is defined). A simple category error is giving rise to the illusion that these "principles" you are asserting are sound.

For those who are not interested in metaphysical philosophy, discussions about Mind/Body distinctions may indeed be "tedious" --- probably because it questions their basic assumptions (or prejudices) about the world. — Gnomon

The debate is tedious precisely because of unwarranted assumptions about the nature of mind and matter, of the metal and physical. So, I at least, find it tedious because I don't make assumptions like that, but treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience.

I don't have any vested interest, and I believe those who do are usually either religious apologists; people seeking empirical or epistemological justification for religious belief, or on the other side, atheists or haters of religion who seek empirical or epistemological justification for rejection of religious belief.

You seem to be simply assuming that thoughts are not in any way examples of physical work. But if they are correlated with neural activity then they are examples of energy exchange, of physical work.

Anyway your argument seemed to be that if thoughts are physical activity when I think a thought I should weigh more. I presented the examples of electricity flow and heating of objects to show that I think this reasoning is fallacious.

This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate. I think it's safe to say that the only people interested in it are those who think it has some bearing on religious faith; either those who wish to justify religion or those who wish to refute it. Either way, it's a fool's errand!

Here's me, I'm thinking about Aphrodite (goddess of beauty).

My brain neither gains mass nor increases in volume. Ergo, my thought about Aphrodite isn't matter! — TheMadFool

Question: Is mind also nonphysical? — TheMadFool

Question: does a length of copper cable increase in weight when you pass electrical
current through it? Or does a piece of steel increase in weight when you heat it up?

Yeah, sent me a personal message asking if I wanted to read their book, which I ignored.

But then, of course, the physicalist says even if the output energy is of a different kind, it is still energy. To which the metaphysician rejoins, output energy must then be merely representational of input energy.....and the war continues unabated. — Mww

Yes, the physicalist will say that cognition or perception is a physical process, but is also to be counted as a mental or neural process. The energetic impingement on the senses, along with the established neural structures formed gradually by prior impingement, give rise to perception, which is always already perceiving as. So, perception is always already conceptually shaped, and the eliminative physicalist is not denying personal experience or consciousness, but merely denying that the mental is what we intuitively think it is. To which one may retort that the physical is not what one intuitively think it is either. Personally I find it a tedious debate; it's like a threshing machine with strawmen flying in all directions, and no one noticing that they are strawmen mean since they are all in tiny pieces.

I do understand that phenomena are generally taken to mean all that is external to us, of which we as yet have no knowledge, which is, as you say, that which impinges on the senses. The contradiction only arises when one thinks the impingement is the sensation, but also says sensation is not phenomenon. So the one contradicts the other, or the one or the other contradicts itself. — Mww

I agree; insofar as the act of sensing is itself sensed and/or studied, then it too is a phenomenon. The internal act, or as some might say the illusion of an internal act, is not something which seems to be susceptible to awareness, though; but in saying that I am speaking only from my own experience; others may experience, or interpret their experience, differently, so...

Matter of taste, indeed. The object though, is to find common taste. People been trying for thousands of years....ain’t quite there yet. — Mww