Total posts: 332
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what mechanism would enable two fundamentally dissimilar substances to interact ?
by "mechanism" you mean what is the way one interacts with the other?
I think it depends on what we mean by "interact." This word, I do not think is univocal, as there are different ways two things can interact. This means the word is analogous.
They can interact essentially, (like the order of matter versus the matter itself, like the order of the molecules versus the molecules themselves like in water)
They can interact accidentally (like the interaction between me and what color I am, how much weight I have, etc...)
The only commonality between these things is Being. But not being in the same way, hence not fundamentally similar.
Being simply means you exist. But that does not mean you exist the same way or as the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
have you ever observed two fundamentally dissimilar substances interacting ?
Who says I need to observe them to understand that it is possible? This is a question of reasoning, not evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
by definition, fundamentally dissimilar substances are mutually undetectable
Then what is the definition?
And you are not really answering why. You are just repeating your proposition.
What is it about "disimilarity" implies two things cannot interact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
but logic itself
Why? I am not saying that things that have the same fundamental substratum cannot interact.
I am saying there is no reason to think that things that do not have the same fundamental substratum cannot interact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So your argument is "because we cannot observe otherwise"
Yet what is unreasonable about saying they can?
You would probably say there is no evidence of that.
But what about the lack of evidence makes reasonable conclusions unreasonable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
repeating your proposition does not prove it.
Can you answer why or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the two must share a fundamental substrate
You still have not answered why...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
He is "seperate" in the sense that he is not of the universe.
Does not mean He cannot interact with it.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Have you looked at other philosophies besides modern ones?
Because they have been looking at this question (gods existance) for literally over 2,000 years...
Sure! You can adhere to the philosophy behind science, but have you looked at the other ones?
Because they have been looking at this question (gods existance) for literally over 2,000 years...
Sure! You can adhere to the philosophy behind science, but have you looked at the other ones?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
maybe, "spirit" or whatever you want to call it
No. I do not call it a spirit. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
We most definitely can observe the order of the particles. That is what I am talking about. In fact, I will argue this "order of the particles" is what makes something what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you familiar with neutrinos ?
Ah! Ok! I see where you are going with this.
So, materially speaking, everything is the same. I agree!
But... are they the same thing...formally? Meaning are the different neutrinos, electrons, neutrons, protons, whatever you want to call them, ordered the same way in everything?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont.
And that is not absurd to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The only way to confirm causation is by observation.
So...how do you know your mother was born? I do not think you observed it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
two fundamentally distinct substances cannot interact
Why?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by "substance"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
must necessarily be fundamentally comprised of the same substance
Nope.
To say they are the same substance is to say they are the same actual thing.
That is absurd.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
is this resultant act wholly informed by your biology and experience ?
It is an abstract explnation of cause and effect.
If your biology or experianced causes something it cannot wholly inform it because no effect is greater than its cause.
some "magic" perhaps associated with converting "potency" into a "resultant act" ?
No.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what are you injecting into "the actual moment of causation" if not random noise ?
The answer to this is very abstract.
When talking about Being we can can say two very basic notions of it.
1. What is
2. What could be.
I am going to call number 1 Act
I am going to call number 2 Potency
In order for a cause to cause it must give Act to a Potency. I.E. It must make "what is" out of "what could be"
The actual moment of causation is the cause giving Act to a Potency. The effect is the resultant Act.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Have you considered the LUSHOOK or the ANDE (Anti Death) ethos? LUSHOOK is very common, but since you are Catholic, the ANDE ethos might apply to you as well.
I have considered it in my course of studying history. LUSHOOK that is.
I tend more to a distributist political idea, which can really only work in a Catholic society.
Obviously if someone does not want to be Catholic that is their choice and distributism is not a viable option for them. Nor do I think it is a viable option in the United States due to the Constitution.
Because of that, I tend more to a political ideology that focuses on morality as coming from a things purpose, its effects on the common good, etc.
The ANDE ethos I do not have a problem with, except in cases where a person is a grave threat to society. I.E. He is determined to kill everyone. I think in those cases capitol punishment or at least heavy imprisonment for the rest of his life is a better option.
The problem I have with LUSHOOK is that I do think it is immoral to harm gravely ones body and the established authority should interfere in those cases. With discretion, and all due to privacy of course. I do think certain drugs are exceptionally harmful to the body and the authority should ban those drugs. As an example.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
That is very true. The republicans are a mess.
I would not go democrat though as they go against certain values that I hold.
I would opt for a third party.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
first cause + (effect which is also a cause) + (effect which is also a cause) + (effect which is also a cause) + (effect which is also a cause) = (object which is both an effect and also a cause)
Yes I agree with this as an explanation of causality. I do not disagree that an effect can be a cause. In fact, I think we can say that of everything that happens after the first cause.
one necessarily and inevitably leads to the next
I understand the "necessarily" as in whatever the causes effectuates is necessary by virtue of the cause. That I agree with.
But to say that "This particuler effect is what is necessary" is what I do not agree with. There can be different types of causes, and a cause can cause differently. It is not determined (i.e. necessary) until it actually causes in the moment of causation.
I understand the "inevitably" simply as "if a cause effectutes, its effect is inevitable" This I agree with. But to say "This particuler effect is inevitable" I disagree because there can be different types of causes involved and every effect is determined by its cause. Not to mention other causes can interfere.
Every Cause is indeterminate until the actual moment of causation.
An effect is an effect and only an effect until the moment it is causing.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You seem to be saying that an action is caused before it is caused. That is absurd.well, it can't be caused AFTER it is caused
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. So let me make it clear.
"caused" is from the verb "to cause" and it is the past particple which in english can also be an adjective implying that something is already an effect.
So what I said above, let me say it another way.
You seem to be saying that something is an effect before it is an effect. Which is to say that something is an effect and not effect at the same time and in the same way. Which is absurd.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
if your actions are caused they are inevitable
They are only inevitable after they are caused not before.
the only way to break inevitability is to add randomness
Why is that the only way?
You seem to be saying that an action is caused before it is caused. That is absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
Hi!
I am MAV99.
I am very interested in Philosophy and prefer those kind of discussions and debates. I have studied Philosophy for over 10 years ranging from The Ionians to Modern day Philosophers. My favorite philosophy is called moderate realism, mainly Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle are the proponents of it.
I speak several languages and I use my spare time on hobbies like Vestment making, models and woodwork.
I am a Catholic by choice and my political ideology is something called Distributism which can only work in a Catholic Society.
If anyone wants I am happy to discuss distributism in the forum. Just ask and I will start a thread for it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
but how much, what fills the gap between the orchestra of causality and your "choice" ?
There is no gap.
There are theuniversal causal chains and my free will simply continues it in whatever I choose.
I can choose not to eat the ice cream. I have simply continued the universal chain of causes.
I can choose to eat the vanilla. I have simply continued the universal chain of causality.
Universal causality does not mean there can be no free will.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you choose the flavor that you predict will result in a future state of enjoyment that is preferable to the future state of another choice
That is not the will predicting. That is the intellect predicting.
Predicting means "to say of the future with knowledge" That means it deals with the intellect.
I still do not think free will has anything to do with prediction.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you're still making a prediction about the future
How is it a prediction?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you decide to eat the ice cream before or after you eat the ice cream ?
Before obviously. What are you trying to get at by that question?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I make a conscious deliberate descision about what I know here and now. It has nothing to do with trying to predict the future.please provide an example
I know, here and now, that I have vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream in front of me. I know that I can choose either or neither or both. So, with this knowledge I choose here and now.
You can swap out whatever you want for the two different types of ice cream. a walk or run, a wrench or screwdriver, a martini or a gin and tonic, a job or unemployment, cash or credit, this bank or that bank, whatever you want.
Free will has to do with here and now, what I know. I cannot choose something I have no idea whatsoever that it exists.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you only make a deliberate conscious decision when you are trying to predict the future and you are less than 100% positive
That is not true.
I make a conscious deliberate descision about what I know here and now. It has nothing to do with trying to predict the future.
an omniscient omnipotent creator already knows all futures with 100% certainty and therefore cannot make a deliberate conscious decision
You are confusing possibility with actuality.
An OOC knows all future possibilities. It does not mean He cannot make a deliberate conscious descision to make one of those possibilities an actuality.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
design + accumulated data + random noise = "ability to choose"
You are basically saying here that free will needs a "misunderstanding" to be free because you said "random noise" is a misunderstanding of enviorment/ quantum flux.
That means absolutely nothing. You are not being very clear here.
Look, I am assuming you have something to say, but right now it seems you are just clothing it in random meaningless phrases that have nothing to do with what I said.
This conversation is really going nowhere.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
design + experience + random noise = your will
Nope. Not what I have been saying.
Design + "experiance" (better to say "concept") + ability to choose = free will
And what does "random noise" mean?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
your actions are the manifest will of the creator
No they are not.
Or you would not have free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
Mariokart.
It is the only game I play with my seven brothers.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
your "soul" is designed by the creatorthe creator knows how your "soul" will react in every conceivable situationthe creator also knows what specific data your "soul" will accumulateand if the creator wanted you to be any different (perhaps happier, smarter, more holy or whatever)it would have simply used a different "soul" variationyour "soul" is a known quantity to the creatoreasily predictablea foregone conclusion
And your point is what?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
we're still talking about function
Purpose is not necessarily the same thing as function. It can be. But that does not mean always.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
the rock accumulates experiences
That is an exceptionally broad use of the word "experiance"
I have always read that "experinace" as properly understood involves a mind of some sort.
Even still: The "exhibits behavior" is only when brought in with other elements, chemical reactions if you want. There is still no mind behind that in the thing itself. Most definitly outside of it there is a mind of some sort.
I am not quite sure what your point is here. Where are you trying to go with this?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
a rock has a nature and accumulates data and exhibits behavior that is exactly"the sum of these things
"A rock accumulates data and exhibits behavior..." You need to explain that to me. How in the world does a rock exhibit bahavior? What do you mean by that?
"...the sum of these things." those are the data, design, and random noise?
What about purpose? Is that in your equation?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i only care about function
Ok... Well I certainly care more about the whole rather than just its functions.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
then they are functionally indistinguishable from my description of a human mind
Except for the fact they deal with different things to produce different things and each has a different purpose.
The soul of a person is different from the human mind.
And no, I still do not think functunionality determines whatness.
To say that because we can see a very general similiarity in functionality imlies that we are talking about the same thing is absurd. Youy might as well say that an axe and a blender are the same thing because they chop and slice. or that "a river and a flood and the ocean and a lake are the same thing because they have flowing water."
To say that "well both have a nature and accumalate data therefore the same thing" is to say that "computers are the same thing as human minds, and souls and animals and plants"
One will very quickly fall into absurdities if this is his process of thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it seems like you're saying OOC designed "spirit" to be unpredictable
That is not really what I am saying. That is something besides the point of what I am saying.
There are causes that exist after the first cause. Those causes are what we immediately see.
Created:
"souls" accumulate and process data based on their original design specifications ?
That is not really the language I would use. You can say that as long as you understand that The data is not something material.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
it uses the image the brain makes to understand deeper what the thing is
I said that.
It is designed to know and to will.
I said that as well.
...soul takes that (image from the brain), unites it to itself, thus giving us understanding (i.e. intellectual knowledge) and from that the will chooses to act or not to act.
And that as well.
It controls the human body.
I also said that.
Clearly I said more than simply it was a principle. And yes, to say it is a principle does mean something. I am not using meaningless words here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) OOC designed "spirit" (AND) "spirit" does what it is designed to do (THEN) "spirit" is controlled by OOC
That is a fallacy
To design does not mean it necessaily controls.
All you are trying to do is make the original IF-THEN syllogism fit the philosophy I use, which I have said from the beginning isincompatible with the philosophy I use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
does "soul" accumulate data ?
The soul makes data (if you want to use that word).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
just say "the soul is an inscrutable black-box" that animates human flesh
That would be to say that we know nothing about it. That is not true. I would be lying if I said that.
and is also not controlled by or able to be predicted by YHWH
I never said it was controlled by YHWH, nor do I think it is.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
it can never learn anything
Not true.
like I said, it uses the image the brain makes to understand deeper what the thing is. That is not by definition an experiance. But it does not mean the soul can never learn.
What the soul learns is what the thing is.
All you have asserted here is that experiance is the only way to know something. Not true. This is the problem I have with the "enlightenment" philosophy that said that. It is simply not true and the very existence of reason proves it.
and it is not controlled by your human body
Yeah, you are right! It controls the human body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
is the mechanism of "spirit" influenced by its design (fundamental nature) ?
It is not influenced by its design. It does what it is designed to do. There is difference to act according to what you are and to act because of an outside influence. Different origins of action.
is the mechanism of "spirit" influenced by its experiences ?
It is not in its design to have experiances. Experiances are for the body. They originate in the senses and then the brain produces an image which the soul, by design, takes unto itself to produce understanding. That is not the same as experiance.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
is the "spirit" motivated by its design AND its experiences ?
A soul does what it does. Its "motivation" as you call it ( I would call it "what it does") is to know and to will. It is designed to know and to will. nothing more.
The soul does not have "experiances" as I think you mean it here. Experiances are something our brains and our bodies have. Our soul simply knows and either wills or does not will to act upon the concept that arises from the image in the mind which has its principle or origin in the senses.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what motivates the actions of your "soul" ?
Your brain produces an image and the soul takes that, unites it to itself, thus giving us understanding (i.e. intellectual knowledge) and from that the will chooses to act or not to act.
I just summarized in one sentence a whole work by Thomas Aquinas called De Anima.
I obviously left out alot. I have given you the name of the work. It was first written in Latin, so if you know latin it is pretty easy. You can find it on the internet. There are translations into other common languages though.
Created: