Antisocial Personality Disorder

[Trilby]

thanks~! I needed that!

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Wimping out? It was explicitly said in post #1. The discussion was over the implications of that.

By "wimping out" I meant using science where science does not belong. You don't use science to explain your spiritual beliefs or lack there of. Belief is just that - belief. The word "science" comes from the Latin scio - to know. Again, I don't like Flint's argument because it reminds me of intelligent design in reverse.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Again, I don't like Flint's argument because it reminds me of intelligent design in reverse.

ahh....that's why it makes me cringe! Like de-evolution. UR-EK-KA! That's it!

[Pangloss62]

Personally, I've never believed in free will or a "soul," but for those that do, brain imaging evidence must seem like a threat.

You don't use science to explain your spiritual beliefs or lack there of.

Why not? You propose that "spiritual beliefs or lack there of [sic]" are somehow seperate from the brain? How could that be? From where does this "spiritual" component emerge? Flint's basic proposition is that anything outside our physicality enters the realm of the metaphysical (magic, etc). My only intent was to get people to talk about how almost all behaviors are now being reduced to brain chemistry, with a very explicit example. I said at the beginning how I feel about free will and a soul. Starting a thread with "I don't believe in God" would not produce much useful discussion.

Either "God" or this "greater power" (or both) are indeed dicks or there are no such things. To conclude the latter does not mean we should just sit on our hands and not do anything. Nihilism does not have to be negative. It's a starting point. It's up to "us," whatever our bodies can do to improve the world and help others. The "Golden Rule" should not be the exclusive province of the religious or spiritual. Are we not men, marichiko?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by marichiko

By "wimping out" I meant using science where science does not belong.

There's glory for you!

And by glory, I mean a nice, knock-down argument.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Ah, so it's your definition of "automaton" that is really the root of the argument.

We could have avoided about 80 posts with clear reading?

I caught sarcasm in this post. Flints reply implied he concidered it at face value. The fact that we interpret things as we will since we have a free will to do so proves we are not automations.

plus,,,,dogs can't read. Is further proof. I can make this silly statement is further proof of my free will.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We can conclude from that:

A) There IS a God

B) He's a dick.

I thought maybe life was a useless excursion of drudgery and then you die and become food for the grubs. I like the way you say it better though.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

The fact that we interpret things as we will since we have a free will to do so proves we are not automations.

No it doesn't. If you and Flint both started at identical states, with identical brains and identical bodies, with identical upbringings, and read the statement in identical settings with identical states of mind, and then interpreted it differently, that would be evidence against the automaton proposition.

The choice of the word automaton may not be optimal, as some people may take it to imply some sort of mass production, and therefore everyone acting the same. A better word may be deterministic.

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Why not? You propose that "spiritual beliefs or lack there of [sic]" are somehow seperate from the brain? How could that be? From where does this "spiritual" component emerge?

Why not what?

Np, I do not propose that a spiritual outlook is somehow seperate from the brain. It is our highly evolved brains which allow us to have a sense of awareness as unique selves, allows us to question and argue such things as metaphysics, makes us stand in awe of the stars on a clear summer's night. Does this understanding mean that I think physics is behind all of these things? Not necessarily. I am saying that it is an act of hubris on the part of scientists who proport to know all the answers to these things. I do not know these answrs and I studied science and the scientific method for 6 years in one of the finest science departments in one of this country's better universities. I became especially intrigued by the philosophy of science and made a study of that as well. In the end, Shakespeare summed it up as well as anyone, "There is more on heaven and earth than ever dreamed of in your philosophy."

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Starting a thread with "I don't believe in God" would not produce much useful discussion.

I'll accept that, but why feed into the hands of the syncophants?

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

The "Golden Rule" should not be the exclusive province of the religious or spiritual. Are we not men, marichiko?

We are men and we are women, both. Nowhere did I imply that the Golden Rule is not a valid precept for people of any persuasion to attempt to follow. Try reading Edmund O. Wilson for starters. If you want to be a decent human being on purely scientific precepts, Wilson is as good a philosopher of science to start with as any. However, do not tell me that science has proved ther is no God or that science has proved we are all automotons running our predestined little lives to an extant that would make a Calvinist proud. Science has not done these things.

[KinkyVixen]

Ahhhh! my brain hurts!!

[Vulgar Freudian]

This thread is one big reaktion formation.

Read The Future of an Illusion, take two aspirin, and call me next week.

There is no such thing as antisocial personality disorder.

[Ibby]

But there IS a such a thing as pompous-windbag-who-posts-once-and-thinks-they-have-any-affect-at-all-on-what-anyone-thinks personality disorder, as far as I can tell. If you're gonna join to help or to give insight, great. But don't be a dick about it. Do you have a single thing to back up your post for those of us who dont rush out to spend our precious little money on a book we wont like just to figure out what some nutcase on a forum is talking about?!

I mean, uh, welcome to the cellar, care to elaborate on that point?
(Man, I think I'm PMSing, and I'm not even a chick...)

[wolf]

Don't worry Ibram. That's just your gender confusion talkin'.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Well, there's either a physical process, or a magical one. That's the definition of supernatural - not bound by the laws of physics.

Yes, science doesn't answer why, but why doesn't answer how. In the scientific sense, whys don't even reach the theory stage, much less get past it. You can't experimentally test a why. They can only be theories in the colloquial sense, in other words guesses. You can't research a why in the scientific sense, you can only read the untestable guesses of other people.

But if the question is "what is consciousness", the why, even if known, doesn't answer the how (though it would probably, if known, point research in the right direction). And that how is, in the end, either physics or magic.

No, I want door #3....or maybe #4
You're doing the same think Flint did, gotta be A or B.
You can't say what we don't know is governed by physics.
Nor is it reasonable to say if we find things that don't fit the laws as they are understood now, it's magic.

"mag·ic n.
The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural."

There's no reason to suppose what we don't understand has anything to do with the supernatural.

[skysidhe]

so what are they saying? Magic and physics? what does magic have to do with physics? Magic is a vague term. I think it's just screwy. I think I'll let loose like Ibram.:p


hehehe