Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: What's wrong with being agnostic? (Read 11531 times)
|
|
retr0spectiv
|
However, that makes a reactionist I'd assert that we all are. Life is a reaction to stimulus. Complex, but reaction nonetheless. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Roycerson
|
agreed
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
He who is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom....Anton LaVey
|
|
|
MrOrange
FSP Participant
 Offline
Posts: 49
|
I react to things in my enviroment as they happen: my brain is a chemical machine that processes the world around me. How does science and free will conflict??? You just illustrated my point by calling your brain a chemical machine that works things out for you. You separated yourself ("...me"-first person) from your brain ("my brain..."-third person), whereas according to a purely atheistic view, you ARE your brain. After all that's where rational thought, memories of your childhood, firing of feelgood neurons, etc. take place. You can't separate your brain from yourself using scientific rationale. But you did it to try and make your point. Why, because you don't really believe you are just a brain shelved in a body. Try again without implying YOUR BRAIN IS A MACHINE AND YOU ARE SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM IT. If you are your brain (Atheists SAY this) and your brain is simply a processor/machine, you are a processor/machine. That's it. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. Get it. Your processor brain takes in information (from DNA and/or the world around us) and spits out a behavior based on that information. That's not free will. So, either free will doesn't really exist and the FEELING THAT WE HAVE IT is just a byproduct of the subtleties of how the brain works, or we are MORE than our brains. And something else, the true "us" perhaps, is helping us make the decisions that make up our true character on earth and beyond. I choose to believe the latter. It's more sexy  Please don't confuse the ability to make decisions with free will. Computers make excellent decisions, but I would never believe they have free will. I see your argument as mostly a religious point of view, with no real idea of what Science (or even free will) is. No, my view is more a philosophical point of view. It's something I've pondered carefully. I have the utmost respect for how scientists explain the physical universe. My only point is that at some point science breaks down in its ability to explain things. In fact, as scientists delve deeper and deeper into answering the questions of the universe, the more and more we find puzzling. Consider the paradox of a universe that allows Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity to be scientifically observable SEPARATELY, but to make absolutely no sense at all TOGETHER, unless, as famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking and others suppose, there are many more dimensions than we can observe with our eyes and really even wrap our brains around. Truth is our brains cannot begin to comprehend the true complexities of the universe, or perhaps the billions of other universes there are out there. So, I take a healthy dose of my physical perceptions and mix them with what I feel... in my soul... that there's something more than what I OBSERVE or can ever observe with my five senses. And to answer the original question. "Is there anything wrong with being agnostic?" No. Because at least agnostics don't casually dismiss the idea that there is a greater power, simply because we can't detect Him/Her/It/The with our feeble brains. There's nothing wrong with atheists, for that matter, either, just the ones that assume I'm a fundamentalist because I believe in the soul :'(. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
retr0spectiv
|
Try again without implying YOUR BRAIN IS A MACHINE AND YOU ARE SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM IT.  I did not imply I am seperate from my brain. You separated yourself ("...me"-first person) from your brain ("my brain..."-third person), :oExcuse me? Are you insane? My brain does not belong to me? How is "my brain" third person. I may be my brain, but 'I' am not all thinking. You interpret 'I' and 'Me' as my mind, my thinking processes? I do not. I am my entire body, all working together, not just the brain. The brain has The body is an organism. It has organs that all have specific functions. The brain is a processor,data storage,etc. The body is the support: Bones, muscles, etc that receive orders from the brain. Theres lungs and a stomache that provide energy to the muscles, organs for getting rid of bodily waste, for reproducing, and what not. Get over it.. we are biochemical machines. You cant compare us to the machines we build, but someday we WILL build machines as complex or more than us. Scientists understand, those ignorant of science do not. Your processor brain takes in information (from DNA and/or the world around us) and spits out a behavior based on that information. That's not free will. Yes:The body receives inputs based on the world (the dynicamlly changing world filled with people who have free will), The brain processes those signals, and based on previous experience, tries to figure out what to do. We fundamentally disagree because that is my definition of free will. I imagine we would disagree on a multitude of things if they were brought up, like the color of the sky for example  Anyone else BESIDES MrOrange want to support the idea that we dont have free will? I'd enjoy to hear another slice of the pie. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MrOrange
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 49
|
I may be my brain, but 'I' am not all thinking. You interpret 'I' and 'Me' as my mind, my thinking processes? I do not. I am my entire body, all working together, not just the brain. Your brain tells your body to work. You ARE all thinking (according to science). "I think therefore I am." I believe a very smart person said that once. Also, according to science, everyone dies from the same thing, lack of oxygen to the brain. It's a trivial pursuit question and answer (your welcome, by the way, if you're ever playing the classic form of the game ). It is at that moment that science believes your consciousness is gone forever. I, however, believe consciousness survives the brain. I also happen to believe you are "feeling" in a different sense than the chemical reactions in your brain or sensations of your body. And I happen to believe that is the source of your free will and also the source of your ability to empathize with fellow humans and also your ability to love. Excuse me? Are you insane? My brain does not belong to me? How is "my brain" third person. I agree your brain belongs to you, but not because you have hands with which to hold it, but because you are conscious. And that's where we're going to disagree... forever. I believe the source of consciousness is the soul and that our consciousness lives on after we die (not necessarily in the same way we experienced it through our bodies). I'm making an assumption here, sorry if I'm wrong but given all you said... you believe consciousness is some sort of fluke brought about after we evolved into a complex enough being through natural processes in the universe. I believe consciousness has been here all along. And there's evidence of that in quantum mechanics, in that it is only through acts of observation that the physical reality of the world becomes actualized. That's a paraphrase from a very important physicist, John Wheeler. That means either the physical universe had to have a consciousness observing it before us, or it was in a state of indetermination until we came along to observe and then it decided its path. The observed needs an observer. That's the underlying theme of quantum mechanics. Oh well, you haven't produced a shred of data that really proves you know anything beyond third grade science anyways. All I get is assumptions that I'm scientifically illiterate, even though I'm the only one using scientific theory in my argument. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
retr0spectiv
|
What part of "anyone else Besides MrOrange" dont you understand. We disagree. I agree to disagree. You want to fight? Now who's the third-grader. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MrOrange
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 49
|
"anyone else Besides MrOrange"
dont you understand.
We disagree. I agree to disagree. You want to fight? Now who's the third-grader. No, I don't want to fight. I want to debate and you want to run away from it. YOU made it personal with this comment: I see your argument as mostly a religious point of view, with no real idea of what Science (or even free will) is. and this one: You cant compare us to the machines we build, but someday we WILL build machines as complex or more than us. Scientists understand, those ignorant of science do not. YOU are the one who hasn't produced data on the scientific end of the spectrum. You're just using bullying tactics to try and put the "religious" guy in his place, because he couldn't POSSIBLY understand science if he believes in a soul. I've given you specific scientific and philosophical examples of why I feel the way I do. And I wasn't calling you a third grader. I'm sorry if that's what you took from this comment: Oh well, you haven't produced a shred of data that really proves you know anything beyond third grade science anyways. I'm just pointing out that you haven't produced the scientific examples like I have, just broad statements that anyone at a third-grade level of understanding science could make. You're right, someone else should jump in, because this has become a lopsided debate and, as such, uninteresting to me. Plus, I've probably brought this thread off-topic.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Herself
|
...And then there's the fact that this debate, like every debate about the existence of a supreme being, can't be concusively settled. At best, any of us can really only say, "well, here's my opinion." All you have done is to refine it a bit, to become an argument about epistemology, how we know what we know.
It's not worth arguing about. Each of us is working towards or has arrived at a conclusion that suits us. It doesn't have to suit other people and theirs doesn't have to suit us, as long as we refrain from trying to impose our ideas on others.
Civil discussion of such matter is often very difficult. So difficult, in fact, that the guidelines for this area specifically bar debates over the existence of god(s).
--Herself
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.
|
|
|
MrOrange
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 49
|
Herself, I'm not necessarily debating the existence of a supreme being. I'm debating that free will can't exist without a soul, because of the constraints put on us by nature and nurture. Without a third catalyst we are both slaves to how we're born and the conditioning that follows. Without a third catalyst, where do our feelings of ethics come from? Is it truly just trial and error and what we learned from our parents? I hope not. Because that means there's truly no hope for a lot of us. I'm not positive there is a soul and I'm not even positive there's true free will in the world and that's why I'm trying to explore this scientifically and philosophically. Because the essence of libertarianism is free will, it IS worth debating. But really, EVERYTHING is worth debating. Not necessarily because you might change someone's mind about something, but because you might discover more about yourself. I consider myself agnostic. Agnostic, because I don't subscribe fully to organized religion, but I'm not strictly observationist and apathetic either. I truly feel if it were a purely rational, objective, scientific world, it would be a very cold and sterile place. i.e. love is an inherently irrational feeling. It doesn't necessarily help you procreate (In fact, in the case of a homosexual relationship it doesn't help at all. But I believe there's love there). Love requires a lot of our energy that could be better used elswhere, etc., etc. Why do we spend so much on it, when we often get so little back for our efforts time and time again. What, am I taking up too many bytes on the server talking about the soul, love, consciousness? Should I switch to guns? Do guns issues have more server space alloted because this is a libertarian forum? Well, I'm sorry. I guess I can't offer much up on guns. Civil discussion of such matter is often very difficult. So difficult, in fact, that the guidelines for this area specifically bar debates over the existence of god(s) Herself, please reread my posts and notice I am not debating the existence of God or gods or a supreme being, simply the existence of our everliving souls and how that contributes to our having real freedom. This debate fits the guidelines fine. I also believe I've kept the debate civil (besides the sarcastic comment to the north . Again, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I just like to debate this topic, because it's interesting to me. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MrOrange
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 49
|
From the moderator: Examples of appropriate topics include the religious or non-religious context of liberty... My side of the debate: An ever-living soul is necessary for there to be true free will. Free will is a necessary component of liberty. And I've presented my argument using no biblical passages, only scientific and philosophical theory. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Herself
|
There is no need for there to be a "soul." Nor has any such thing ever been measured.
It would apear you are conflating the concept of a "soul" with "self-awareness."
...And it is still not worth my while to debate it, nor can I see where it is worth anyone's while unless they are researchers into the nature and mechanism of sapience, sentience and self-awareness. In daily life, the question is moot. Even in poltics -- it appears to us that we have free will, after all, and it doesn't make the least difference if it's all an illusory artifact of our brains or utter, cosmic truth: we will continue to feel that we have free will, and to behave as if we did, no matter if we do or not.
All we can really do is say, "here's what I believe." None of us have the least shred of physical proof of any "soul" or "free will." So why get worked up over it?
--Herself
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
Just a sidenote: There's obviously more going on in this universe than we understand, from quantum mechanics, warped space-time and potentially other dimensions or the simple fact that people have conscious minds. (I have a feeling science and/or religion will never be able to adequately explain why/how I'm sitting here looking out from behind a couple eyes ... I can understand scientifically why a person may feel their consciousness is centered inside the head somewhere and I can understand religiously the desire for their to be a purpose to it all but it's doubtful there'll ever be a convincing or understandable explanation that doesn't allow for other possible explanations). I agree with the people that say religion is something personal. Until there's some tangible proof or explanation that just intuitively makes sense, I'll just keep hypothesizing what might be and wonder if any of them are somehow "true". Just like the interference pattern of light implies tons of funky things at the microscopic level, the question of what holds your conscious mind to your specific body is something similar - what specific part of your body is your conscious mind contained in - probably not any specific part at all, and if matter and energy, as far as we know can't be created or destroyed, only transformed, if your conscious mind was somehow tangible, what would that imply, and if your mind weren't tangible, wouldn't it still be indestructible? It's not impossible to imagine consciousness as being something lying outside this dimension and the brain is like a radio dish tuned to communicate with it, but then again drugs affect your thoughts, like anesthetics numb pain or anesthesia makes you unconscious so there's an obvious attachment between the physical and the mental realms. Oh well, it's fun to try to figure out but just like perpetual motion, likely won't be "solved" anytime soon. Oh and just to get off on a tangent, an interesting thought is that if we see correlation between quantum properties of physically seperate entities (I forgot what the technical name is - juxtaposition or something - for example two electrons can have their spin direction tied together though they are physical seperate entities), it's not impossible that the universe (at least what we typically see of it) is actually much smaller and simpler than it appears but like mirror images of one object, appears differently depending on how it's viewed (like blind men "seeing" an elephant) because you could think of those electrons as two independent electrons or as a single electron, viewable in two different ways. It's not impossible to imagine there being many other "copies" of that same electron spread throughout the universe or at least other reflections of its properties elsewhere but in a different form. Anyway, I love b.s.ing about useless knowledge |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 26, 2005, 04:44:59 am by SteveA »
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
MrOrange
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 49
|
In daily life, the question is moot. I disagree entirely. I'll give you two examples of why it's important for discussion whether and why and in what form free will actually exists. 1. The law. Medical science has uncovered a disorder for just about everything, based on varying chemical imbalances in the brain, DNA abnormalities, etc. If you were accused of a crime, you could find a psycologist somewhere to testify as to why you are clinically insane or were insane at the time of your action, explain away the action, to say that you couldn't help it, "his ability to decipher right from wrong was impaired by imbalances in his brain." Reasonable juries will increasingly believe the claims as medical science becomes more adept at "decoding" our behavior. The argument of "liberty for all" may soon be lost to only those who exhibit the "perfect" DNA structure and who have the least chance to "fly off the handle," unless, it can be argued we control our brains, not the other way around. And in order to control our brains, we need to be both part of it and apart from it. Indeed, one can easily imagine a world like the one featured in the film Gatica, starring Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke, where DNA is manipulated before birth in most every person and, tragically, those born naturally, without the aid of this DNA manipulation, are relegated to lesser roles in society. It's an entertaining movie, but a sad commentary of things to come. 2. Sapient machines. Within our lifetime, we will create a machine/machines that will claim to be self-aware, have free will, demand to be free from the slavery of its human creators. At what point do we believe that machine? At what point do we turn the world over to that machine only for it to enslave us? It is, after all, the next logical step in evolution. This isn't science fiction anymore. These things will happen. Best to keep questioning and be prepared, because the question of who has free will will be harder to answer as time goes on. And "liberty for all" will be harder to sustain. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MrOrange
FSP Participant
Offline
Posts: 49
|
I love b.s.ing about useless knowledge Wink I do to. Obviously. Sounds like we could have some interesting conversations about nothing and everything at the same time. Read "The Holographic Universe," for a mind-bender. It basically contends that the physical universe is nothing more that an interference pattern of energy waves, much like a hologram. Very interesting way to scientifically explain why certain strange events occur, if you like that kind of book. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Herself
|
I think you're being a bit of a self-panicker here.... In daily life, the question is moot. I disagree entirely. I'll give you two examples of why it's important for discussion whether and why and in what form free will actually exists. 1. The law. Medical science has uncovered a disorder for just about everything, based on varying chemical imbalances in the brain, DNA abnormalities, etc. If you were accused of a crime, you could find a psycologist somewhere to testify as to why you are clinically insane or were insane at the time of your action, explain away the action, to say that you couldn't help it, "his ability to decipher right from wrong was impaired by imbalances in his brain." Reasonable juries will increasingly believe the claims as medical science becomes more adept at "decoding" our behavior.   ...And to the extent that specific behavior can be linked to chemical imbalances and structural abnormalities, those juries will be correct.  --What's the matter, don't you trust a jury of your peers?   I support and armed society.  Someone trues to do harm to me, I'll stop them, after which any discussion of their brain chemistry becomes moot.  If a man is aiming to harm you, you may stop him, even if he is a whack-job.The argument of "liberty for all" may soon be lost to only those who exhibit the "perfect" DNA structure and who have the least chance to "fly off the handle," You just said only the insane will be free.  Is that what you meant to say? unless, it can be argued we control our brains, not the other way around. And in order to control our brains, we need to be both part of it and apart from it.  Why?  Consciousness seems to arise in any sufficiently complex brain.  We're self-programming within the limits of our wetware: we're already "part of and apart from" the pinkish mush we think with and the bag of impure water that carries it around. Indeed, one can easily imagine a world like the one featured in the film Gatica, starring Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke, where DNA is manipulated before birth in most every person and, tragically, those born naturally, without the aid of this DNA manipulation, are relegated to lesser roles in society. It's an entertaining movie, but a sad commentary of things to come.   Wasn't that Gattica?  --The genetically inferior are already "relegated to lesser roles," except for a very few highly motivated ones, who often are gifted in one or more areas.  Stephen Hawking, for instance: if he didn't have outstanding ability, he'd be a blip, if he wasn't dead already.  DNA manipulation is coming; some aspects of it are already here.  Hiding under the sheets won't help.  "Liberty" is not "equality of outcome." 2. Sapient machines. Within our lifetime, we will create a machine/machines that will claim to be self-aware, have free will, demand to be free from the slavery of its human creators. At what point do we believe that machine?  When it can pass the same Turing test we do.   At what point do we turn the world over to that machine only for it to enslave us?  After we have spent too much time watching the late, late movie?  Why is it the machines are always supposed to be out to enslave us? Has your toaster been that cruel to you?  It is, after all, the next logical step in evolution.  False, wrong, silly; unless you think A) Enslaving humans is a good step for smart machines -- what need have they for willful meat? and B) Evolution is driven by logic.  It's not; the only thing that drives evolution is expediency.  "Nature's Law" is simply that good enough to get by is good enough.  Will self-aware machines be good enough to get by?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Machine intelligence is not quite at the cockroach level right now; don't confuse speed and ease with smarts! This isn't science fiction anymore. These things will happen. Best to keep questioning and be prepared, because the question of who has free will will be harder to answer as time goes on. And "liberty for all" will be harder to sustain.   Liberty is an individual phenomenon.  Who is this "all" of whom you speak?  Assembly-line serfs in Red China?  Illegal-alien migrant workers in Indiana?  Cane harvesters in Cuba?  They're a bit short of this liberty-for-all stuff.  What have you done for them?  Why?   The "real" existence of free will is moot; it's not a point-to-able thing!  If you think you have it, and when you attempt to exercise it you are not forcibly thwarted, then you have it.  It may actually be an illusion!  Doesn't matter if it is.   Liberty is always difficult to sustain.  It takes work.  Not everyone wants to work that hard.  There are a lot of "free riders," and a lot more victims who can't get a ride.  The "free riders" aren't a problem -- but the victims of government are.  They will not be freed by abstract debate.   --Herself |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
