Epiphenomenalism, duality and the concept of ghost in the machine; do you regard it as a plausible thereom?
-
It seems very insightfulVoted for by TeChNoWC.
I give credit to the theory, it seems plausible to me, and very practical. Your thoughts?
-
um, wellVoted for by grant.
can you give me more to go on? Plausible just means possible. But many things are possible. To be "practical" it would have to have been practiced. So, have you practiced it, therefore, is it your experience (whatever it is)? A theory is a belief. A belief is not an experience. Your brain can experience a belief, but this is just thought (a yet to manifest idea).
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
As in, in my percieved experience it seems plausible. If you can experience a belief, then shouldn't a belief be credited as some type of experience? It is a mental experience, and would suggest it having no less credit than a physical one, unless you were to attempt to 'percieve' differently. So, an idea holds sway more credit than a belief?
-
I want your considered, percieved, idealised, pictured, revealed, envisioned, notioned, suggested, phenomenalised, believed, theorised, known, whatever system used to form your or whatever you regard your communicative embodiement's opinion.
-
Why is it,...
That everyone thinks big words makes them a philosopher? What in the heck did any of that mean? How did any of the above, voice opinion on Epiphenomenalism? TeChNoWC where is your thoughts on it (u)first and foremost(/u)? grant is right; you just kind of threw that out there and didn't really back it with your opinion or any details, reference or quotes. -
Heavens to Betsy! It didn't have anything to do with epiphenomenalism and if you read my comment in its intended context you would be aware of that. I am aware that grant has difficulty bringing forward his opinions on a matter but rather likes to counterattack anothers.. I am just asking for your opinions on epiphenomenalism.... If you are not acquainted with the concept it is probably better that you look it up on wikipedia or read up on it rather than me explain it.... Why does it have to be so darned hard to have an intelligent conversation? Very well though I will elaborate on the topic, but no need to get heated.
-
A "mental experience" is just that, mental. It depends on whether one wishes to only live in one's brain. It helps to leave the brain occasionally to see that one isn't the brain or the brain is not one's home. "home is where the heart is" and this doesn't mean yet another organ within which to reside.
-
hhuummm
***Why does it have to be so darned hard to have an intelligent conversation?*** TeChNoWC it isn't, but when you post something that is not discussed everyday in all circles of life, and it's reasonable to assume not everyone has heard of it....then it's a good idea to lightly touch on the subject before diving down to deeply in the discussion. I believe that is all frndofyaweh was hinting. -
Sure. But i strongly disagree. I was looking for responses from people that knew about the topic. I don't have to make any allowances, and if you don't want to respond, or don't know how to respond because you are unaware of the philosophies of mind, then don't.
-
***I don’t have to make any allowances, and if you don’t want to respond, or don’t know how to respond because you are unaware of the philosophies of mind, then don’t.*** Let me spell it out for you *Public Board* Which means EVERYONE and ANYONE who wants to post can and will. It's up to the author of the topic to clarify it. It's the responsibility of the author to bring the understanding of the subject up enough to have an intelligent discussion. ***I was looking for responses from people that knew about the topic*** Then you need to be on a private board somewhere then, for this is a public board and will always remain one. You cannot pick who can and cannot response.
-
If you haven't noticed, I have already done as requested. Arguments shouldn't be about victory for the ego, but rather food for the intellect, or, getting what you want, in which case, you got it.
-
-
***Arguments shouldn’t be about victory for the ego, but rather food for the intellect*** Arguments, in general, have no place in debates.
-
-
Grant, I grow tired of your mystical, metaphorical, 'rationalistic', assumations.
-
Speaking of victory for the ego, it comes off as you simply showing off. Perhaps you wanted more knowledge yourself, but you never specified in the topic "For those who don't know, I suggest looking it up on wikipedia as it is very interesting, but I know little about it myself and am mostly looking for the opinions of those who already know quite a bit about the topic." Instead you used a big philosophical word, asking others to expand on it--as if it's common knowledge (at least for the intellectual...). Perhaps that's not what you were doing, but use tact next time. Did you know ANYTHING about this before you Wikied it yourself (probably earlier in the day)? Probably not. So don't assume others should know, and don't assume yourself to be above these underlings who didn't know about epiphenomenalism.
-
Yes, I did. So your 'probably not' theory is wrong. Although no, I hadn't devoted myself to a life long study of the theory of epiphenomenalism.
-
Probably not.
-
-
Brief ExplanationVoted for by TeChNoWC.
It seems some people have an objection to me posing a topic without first explaining it to them. My initial purpose was to actually gain more information on the topic because I myself have a limited understanding of the theory.
For those that cannot research epiphenomenalism on their own, it refers to a theory of mind and consciousness, that while mental states are caused by physical states, mental states do not have any causal influence on physical states. It is best described as a labeled 'ghost' (the conscious mind) living inside a machine (the body and its functions).
The ghost is so labeled due to the fact that a ghost refers to a spirit that no longer has any influence on the physical world around them (or very little, by common definition) but rather sticks around as a mere 'observer'. A machine however, does not have any conscious experience and is not self-aware. It merely follows complex, hardwired procedures.
So, this form of duality explores the concept that the conscious mind, or ghost, inhabits the machine, or body, without having any influence on the actions of the machine itself. It does not 'necessarily' express them as two seperate entities but rather the two parts of the one entity. While a person may think they have control over their actions, they really do not. The ghost simply serves as induced self-awareness due to the complexity of the machine (I don't know exactly how they explain this one; there are problems with the theory of duality) while the machine just performs the determined tasks. Thus, the ghost merely just experiences qualia and has no control over the body, although, it may think that it does.
This is not the best explanation that could be provided. Obviously, to gain a greater understanding one would be best to research the topic from a reliable source, rather than just go by me, because how can we have a discussion if everything you have learnt on the topic is what you learn from me?
This topic was meant for those who have, prior to me posting this, a good knowledge of the subject.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
You said....
Epiphenomenalism, duality and the concept of ghost in the machine; do you regard it as a plausible thereom? ----- It seems very insightful I give credit to the theory, it seems plausible to me, and very practical. Your thoughts? ----- My initial purpose was to actually gain more information on the topic because I myself have a limited understanding of the theory. ----- While a person may think they have control over their actions, they really do not. The ghost simply serves as induced self-awareness due to the complexity of the machine (I don't know exactly how they explain this one; there are problems with the theory of duality) ----- I mean you no foul, but the above four comments are yours and they are very contradictory. You started off, as if you knew quite enough about it, but was testing to see who else could match your wits. Then you begin to admit you know nothing about it. Secondly(read your own words): You say you support it, then you say it has problems?? ----- -
Exactly, frnd. Which, also defeats epiphenomenalism itself. I think it's pretty silly. Obviously we control ourselves. What would be your interest in knowing if we control ourselves or not if we didn't? Our body is just a machine doing things and our mind tircked us into thinking we're controlling this meatbag...and this meatbag is going online researching ideas about freedom on its own...so our mind is pretending we CHOSE to do that, when really mindless meatbags do that kind of thing all the time at random.
-
It defeats epiphenomenalism because I contradicted myself through my appropriation of the topic, or, should I say, how I conducted my affairs on allphilosophy?
-
-
No, everything I said after is what defeats epiphenomenalism.
-
-
"I don't know exactly how they explain this one; there are problems with the theory of duality" I stated that 'there are problems with the theory of duality' indicating I knew as to why I didn't exactly know. There are many different theories as to how duality works, and many of them sound very ridiculous although they are plausible. Descartes came up with one based on spirit and matter. The theories in themselves present solutions, but one can, as in nearly all things, find contradictions.
-
If you find contradictions you found the fla and you should move on.
-
Weydon, that is stupid. Subsequently, you will be doing a lot of moving. Anyway you love being pedantic. These contradictions can be solved, but the initial presence of the contradictions themselves (in multiple cases) lead to an increasing need for extensive explanation. The presence of extensive explanation in itself usually leads one to feel inclined that it is all a bunch of garble, merely for the fact that the more complex its explanation as to how and why, the more likely it seems that such a thing is wrong (people generally go for simplicity). In other words, if you want me to explain to you how duality works, be prepared for a long response with lots of reading and critiquing of concepts and apparent flaws.
-
*Subsequently, you will be doing a lot of moving* Why wouldn't I move if I discovered I was wrong? It's not only stuborn and unconstructive, but dangerous and WRONG. *Anyway you love being pedantic.* Contradiction can only mean one thing. There's a difference between being pedantic and speaking English. *These contradictions can be solved,* Then they are not contradictions. *In other words, if you want me to explain to you how duality works, be prepared for a long response with lots of reading and critiquing of concepts and apparent flaws.* OH NOOOO! Be my guest. A bunch of jargon won't mean you're right though. We control ourselves. Why would our body mindlessly be doing this debate right now, pressing these keys for no reason, and our brain is only PRETENDING we want to be doign this. It's ridiculous and hardly worth debating.
-
-
reason is a creation
one action leads from another, simply because the larger pattern is unregistered to our minds, does not refute this pattern
ergo- every action could be mechanical, meaning control is an illusion. (think butterfly effect)
-
-
1.No. Initially they seem to be contradictions, or they were contradictions that have been side stepped and patched up (had to reithink their theories). 2.You obviously don't care so I won't bother. Unless of course you do..... 3.That's your opinion. That doesn't mean I'm not entitled to talk about it, or even ascribe to it's validity, if I so wish. Although you could prove me wrong.... Your argument is just the same as a creationist's (yes, I am one) "We just couldn't have come from a ball of goo it's incomprehensible, silly and stupid tsk tsk."
-
*1.No. Initially they seem to be contradictions* You didn't say "apparent contradictions", you said you could find contradictions in everything. If you found the flaw in our apparent contradictions, explain. If you have not, they are contradictions. *2.You obviously don’t care so I won’t bother. Unless of course you do…..* What? *3.That’s your opinion. That doesn’t mean I’m not entitled to talk about it, or even ascribe to it’s validity,* You can talk all you like. Without any reasoning or evidence, it's just rambling and doing nothing for your side of the debate. *Your argument is just the same as a creationist’s (yes, I am one) “We just couldn’t have come from a ball of goo it’s incomprehensible, silly and stupid tsk tsk.”* No, I explained why your theory didn't make sense. I didn't just say "That's silly", I explained HOW it's silly. If I didn't, you should easily be able to debunk me. For instance, I could debunk a creationist saying that by letting them know it was not a ball of goo, but the planet Earth covered in many gaseous and liquid chemicals that have been proven to be able to generate very basic forms of life in similar test environments. How are we not ACTUALLY in control of ourselves? You of all people, believing that those darned homosexuals should CONTROL THEIR DESIRES should HATE this idea. If we are just observing our bodies have sex with random people, kill, steal, etc there is no such thing as morality. There is no purpose of debate. There is no purpose in giving up debating, there is no purpose in having opinions. It's just our bodies doing things for survival (like having an intellectual conversation on the nature of freedom...that's really something someone that has no conscious control of themselves would do), and our "consciousness" is simply our brain PRETENDING we're controlling this sack of life.
-
I never said I was an epiphenomenalist. I said it appears valid. My opposition against homosexuality has nothing to do with my stance on epiphenomenalism. Although you may now have conjured up some image of me as a homophobic driven, violent evangelistic christian crusader, sadly, I am not. My opposition towards homosexuality was merely for debate purposes. My aim was not to convince you that homosexuality was bad, but more so to offer room for debate as to why not. Currently my stance is undecided. The views I presented were, to me, valid arguments, but I never considered them definitive proof that I was right. I did not agree with many of the arguments presented that supported the homosexual agenda, and for me they did not provide enough tangible evidence to convince me to uphold them. So, I debated, as one sometimes does when they do not agree with someone elses arguments. I am not saying I was 'lying' to you, what I presented was from my viewpoint, but I made sure to present in such a way that you would feel compelled to fight it. That way, the debate was quickly initiated. Two debates prior to our little session showed that the opposition had very little in the way of a convincing argument. Kazrith was able to shed some light on the situation, however, he never managed to debase my argument, although that may just be my interpretation of the event. The debate seemed to be swayed in my favour. You however did refute my claims fairly well, although eventually we ended up flaring nostrils. Furthermore, when I said homosexuals should control their desires it was only when you presented the assumption that they could. This is an IF/THEN statement. It doesn't mean to say that, regardless of IF, it should always be THEN. So, if I were to embrace epiphenomenalism, I probably would have to disregard my theories on homosexuality. But this is not a problem, because I have no definite stance on either one. You're right, proving epiphenomenalism would not change anything, simply because I would still deny it, in accordance with my faith. I only wish to discuss hypothetically. Oooh I love how you immediately start coming from the 'life would have no meaning' angle. Just like atheism. Which is why you don't accept such notions, not because they are logically fallible, but because they conflict with your beliefs, and your assigned values. It's not that it can't be true, just that you don't want it to be true. You want me to appropriate your feelings of "HATE" towards this idea, and you try to use my percieved values (as in my 'supposed' abhoration of homosexuality) to ignite the same feeling within me. "There is no purpose of debate. There is no purpose in giving up debating, there is no purpose in having opinions." And this is where the hatred (or, let me if you will, re-phrase this as dislike) stems from. If such a theory were true, you would no longer see the purpose you have assigned to these things, and ultimately, to your entire existence. Such a thing would crush these notions. So what do I do about this? You're right. Don't believe it. We must assume it is wrong, for the sake of keeping that purpose, and by all means, do just that. My intent, however, is to merely discuss it not to try and adhere to, but to question for the sake of questioning. When one sees how desperate their situation is, this is what builds faith (or, more correctly, allows one the opportunity to build faith because plight leads to desperation). That is my intent for discussing this matter. "Why would our body mindlessly be doing this debate right now, pressing these keys for no reason, and our brain is only PRETENDING we want to be doign this." The body does not 'mindlessly' perform the task. The mind is part of the machine. Only the conscious self is seen as the ghost. It is to say that all actions are based on triggers set in motion by physical events. So when you take a bite from a sandwich, you may say "mmmm that was nice" but that is not why you take another bite. You take another bite because, through evolution, you are hardwired to eat food to survive, so your body, and your mind, are programmed to do this. We can programme a robot to do exactly the same thing. In effect, we could, hypothetically, program a robot to behave exactly like you in a given situation, however, we know that the motivators were not emotion, choice, decision making etc. It was based on programming using the very IF/THEN protocol I spoke of earlier. So, this robot would not be self-aware, any more than a rock would be. Yet it would appear to be just as complex as you or me (example: C-3PO from Star Wars) Humans however do have self-awareness, and that is the only thing that would, hypothetically, seperate us from these so called philosophical zombies (act just like us; they appear to have emotions, desires, beliefs and attitudes etc but are only programmed to do so). So, in effect, one could be persuaded to think that this self-awareness, being the only difference between these seemingly identical entities, has no pivotal role in human action and reaction. Your mind is just programmed to get angry, your body programmed to act in accordance, and you just experience the percieved qualia that, for variously hypothesized reasons, just happens to accompany such actions and reactions.
-
*I never said I was an epiphenomenalist. I said it appears valid.* If it appears valid then you believe we probably aren't controlling ourselves. I am arguing against that. For someone who shoots out the word pedantic every other post (Ever since you learned OF the word but not the exact definition), you sure are pretty pedantic yourself. *My aim was not to convince you that homosexuality was bad, but more so to offer room for debate as to why not. Currently my stance is undecided.* Very well. But if epiphenomenalism is in fact valid, your stance is "homosexuality is something that has no moral value, because nothing has moral value, because we don't even control ourselves. Why am I writing this? Why do I have opinions? Weird huh?" *The views I presented were, to me, valid arguments, but I never considered them definitive proof that I was right.* If they were valid, they were right. I proved them wrong. If I didn't you are more than welcome to go back to the post and argue my evidence against your "valid" views. *I did not agree with many of the arguments presented that supported the homosexual agenda, and for me they did not provide enough tangible evidence to convince me to uphold them* When you use terms like "homosexual agenda" it's hard for me to believe that your stance is merely undecided. Homosexuals are not conspiring for anything but equality. If my evidence was not sound enough to uphold this "agenda" of equality, GO BACK AND show me how. *You however did refute my claims fairly well, although eventually we ended up flaring nostrils.* I may get a little touchy when it comes to sticking up for people who I feel are wrongly discriminated. It is not constructive to debates, but I don't try to completely get rid of my indignation because I just wouldn't feel as human. When feeling as such, I turn my debating style to be very blunt and caustic but still stick to the facts, perhaps baiting the opponent a little as well but only in lines of their flawwed debate. The only point where I truly kickced it up a notch was when you claimed you stopped debating merely because you were bored. This did not really anger me because it it was an obvious lie, as I would normally find that as funny evidence that I won. It angered me because it was an outright declaration of ignoring evidence I presented to help the equality of people who I feel deserve it, for no other reason than you just didn't feel like it. Online people tend to conveniently forget to respond when I prove this point, and in person they angirly stamp away or sit in class with a shut mouth and pissed face. It is a hollow victory and very discouraging. They have no evidence on their side. I proved them wrong. But nothings changed. When someone outright tells me "Yeah, well, I don't care if you're right, I'm still going to think these people don't deserve it and hinder their progress as equals" it is a tangible form of the experience. I am just grateful we were not in person when it happened, as my conduct following such is embarassing and not constructive. *Furthermore, when I said homosexuals should control their desires it was only when you presented the assumption that they could. This is an IF/THEN statement.* Fair enough. But with that IF argument, my claim stands that they need a reason to control it. *You’re right, proving epiphenomenalism would not change anything, simply because I would still deny it, in accordance with my faith.* Wrong. In accordance with epiphenomenalism your faith is an illusion. You never had a choice, you never had faith. *Oooh I love how you immediately start coming from the ‘life would have no meaning’ angle. Just like atheism.* I believe in God but prescribe to many atheist's notions to the meaning of life. We make our own meanings. I don't believe God would make us to serve Him as He doesn't need servants to get things done. I believe it is fairly apparent He wants us here to use our free will to see what we can do with it. Being the only sentient being for all eternity would get pretty boring. *Which is why you don’t accept such notions, not because they are logically fallible, but because they conflict with your beliefs, and your assigned values* This will likely be the last debate I have with you where I respond to your points. From now on I will simply explain to you that every argument you are trying to use is a use of logic, and you don't believe in logic. Until you admit logic is the only way things can exist, further debates are pointless, even for you. *You want me to appropriate your feelings of “HATE” towards this idea, and you try to use my percieved values (as in my ‘supposed’ abhoration of homosexuality) to ignite the same feeling within me.* Exactly what I was trying to do. And I'll do it again. Rape. Murder. What's the worst thing someone could do to you? THAT. All of this. It's not morally wrong, because there are NO MORALS under epiphenomenalism, because we can't choose. Our bodies are doing this and we're just watching, thinking we have control. *So what do I do about this? You’re right. Don’t believe it. We must assume it is wrong, for the sake of keeping that purpose, and by all means, do just that.* Do you not see what you're doing? How could I question it? If mentally I said "NOOO! IT CAN'T BE TRUE! I HAVE TO BE IN CONTROL!" my body would NOT listen to me. Under epiphenomenalism, I only THINK I'm controlling this body, when really it's on its own. I wouldn't have opinions, I'd have IMAGINED opinions. If it was not constructive for me to go against epiphenomenalism, my body wouldn't allow my IMAGINED consciousness to even THINK of such a notion, because independent thought is an illusion. *My intent, however, is to merely discuss it not to try and adhere to, but to question for the sake of questioning* You questioned, I answered. *When one sees how desperate their situation is, this is what builds faith (or, more correctly, allows one the opportunity to build faith because plight leads to desperation). That is my intent for discussing this matter.* I also have faith out of desperation. I believe in God both because it is comforting and logically plausible. When put in a situation of plight, I will do everything I can to figure it out. I may say a quick prayer for help, but it's probably better that God spends His time interveing with our affairs on BIGGER matters. If I'm in a situation where there is NOTHING I can do, like someone important to me is terribly sick or injured, all I personally can do is prescribe to faith and beg for their getting better. When put in ANY situation of plight, I will not fall to my knees and blubber to God. This is not what capable, functioning being does. *The body does not ‘mindlessly’ perform the task. The mind is part of the machine. Only the conscious self is seen as the ghost.* That's what I meant by mindlessly. *So when you take a bite from a sandwich, you may say “mmmm that was nice” but that is not why you take another bite. You take another bite because, through evolution, you are hardwired to eat food to survive, so your body, and your mind, are programmed to do this.* Of course. But I could also say "ICK! I'd rather eat this apple or candy bar or inject myself with heroin". Better, worse, same. It doesn't matter. It's my choice. Evolution has a lot to do with our desires of flesh. Our conscious minds have to do with our choice. *So, this robot would not be self-aware, any more than a rock would be. Yet it would appear to be just as complex as you or me (example: C-3PO from Star Wars)* Arguably. We are not anywhere near capable of creating robots that advanced yet. In another 30 years we might have very basic CLOSE to AI. There have been many novels and movies about the idea of robots achieving self-awareness at some point. What that means for the idea of a soul. What that means for rights. It's interesting but a moot point to discuss right now. Though, I would side with anything with self-awareness having rights and a soul.
-
"If it appears valid then you believe we probably aren’t controlling ourselves." No. That's not how belief works. I can rationalise evolution. It appears valid. I can rationalise many things. They appear valid. But I don't believe them, simply because I don't want to. Simply because I am, percieved or not, told by God not to believe it. I have faith that such a rationalisation is only used to help strengthen my desperation. Praise God. "Do you not see what you’re doing? How could I question it? If mentally I said “NOOO! IT CAN’T BE TRUE! I HAVE TO BE IN CONTROL!” my body would NOT listen to me. Under epiphenomenalism, I only THINK I’m controlling this body, when really it’s on its own. I wouldn’t have opinions, I’d have IMAGINED opinions. If it was not constructive for me to go against epiphenomenalism, my body wouldn’t allow my IMAGINED consciousness to even THINK of such a notion, because independent thought is an illusion." Point proven. You can rationalise it, but you simply just don't believe it. It could all be an illusion, but the percieved power lies in thinking that's it not (even this could be an illusion, but you simply deny the fact). And if I die and go to nothingness, well, I have lost nothing. It was going to happen anyway. "This will likely be the last debate I have with you where I respond to your points. From now on I will simply explain to you that every argument you are trying to use is a use of logic, and you don’t believe in logic. Until you admit logic is the only way things can exist, further debates are pointless, even for you." I will always adhere to logic in debate, so don't worry. I simply mean to say that logic is not perfect as you think it to be, and, in my personal beliefs, if I want to disregard logic for the purpose of my faith, then I will gladly do so. I will not be bound by perception. "That’s what I meant by mindlessly." So what's the problem? Where is the flaw? "Arguably. We are not anywhere near capable of creating robots that advanced yet. In another 30 years we might have very basic CLOSE to AI. There have been many novels and movies about the idea of robots achieving self-awareness at some point. What that means for the idea of a soul. What that means for rights. It’s interesting but a moot point to discuss right now. Though, I would side with anything with self-awareness having rights and a soul." I said the robots would not be self-aware. It is to show a plausible philosophical zombie. "Wrong. In accordance with epiphenomenalism your faith is an illusion. You never had a choice, you never had faith." So? Trying to defeat purpose again, Weydon. If what you said is so, then what does it matter. My fate was set so there was no escape anyway. There is no loss in this, for there was no opportunity. Of course my will could be destoyed. It is possible that anything is possible. But I just simply choose to believe my will cannot because of the promise of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Of present, this negates the fact, in perception.
-
"Of course. But I could also say “ICK! I’d rather eat this apple or candy bar or inject myself with heroin”. Better, worse, same. It doesn’t matter. It’s my choice. Evolution has a lot to do with our desires of flesh. Our conscious minds have to do with our choice." This would just be the machine making itself pick up something that your qualia percieves as nicer. The machine however, doesn't choose it because it's nicer. It's nicer because the machine chose it. The machine is simply programmed to choose it for some evolutionary purpose or benefit (or it may even be a defect).
-
*No. That’s not how belief works. I can rationalise evolution. It appears valid. I can rationalise many things. They appear valid. But I don’t believe them, simply because I don’t want to. Simply because I am, percieved or not, told by God not to believe it. I have faith that such a rationalisation is only used to help strengthen my desperation. Praise God.* I will say that thinking something appears valid is NOT an automatic belief in it. It could very well be a stepping stone to further research into it before you change stances, but you're not ready to go yet. After seeing that it IS valid, you are either a believer or in denial. *Point proven. You can rationalise it, but you simply just don’t believe it. It could all be an illusion, but the percieved power lies in thinking that’s it not (even this could be an illusion, but you simply deny the fact).* But that's not a route that my "machine" body and imagined consciouness would take. Thinking of how I "don't like" epiphenomenalism and then quickly putting those doubts to rest with my logic implies that my mind has independent thoughts, not imaginary independent thoughts, and that my machine body and mind had to fake me out into not being afraid anymore. My inability to think that up on my own would mean that I would never think of it unless my machine had some sort of reason to. *nd if I die and go to nothingness, well, I have lost nothing. It was going to happen anyway.* What does that have to do with it? *if I want to disregard logic for the purpose of my faith* That is irresponsible and dangerous. Not to mention rude. You think the all-knowing creator of the universe doesn't have REASONS behind doing things? Of course God follows logic. He understands logic better than anyone I'd assume, with all the answers. *I will not be bound by perception.* You were shown religion with your perceptions. *“That’s what I meant by mindlessly.” So what’s the problem? Where is the flaw?* By mindlessly I meant consciously. The body is doing things without any intent or consciouness. If that was the case we would have no reason to be having this debate right now, pretending we want to be having it, as it would serve absolutely no purpose. *I said the robots would not be self-aware. It is to show a plausible philosophical zombie.* Thats why I mentioned the novels and movies that cover that. Like I, Robot, The Matrix, that Robin Williams one, etc. That eventually the AI is advanced enough that the "ghosts in the machine" can only lead to ACTUAL self-awareness and independence. *If what you said is so, then what does it matter. My fate was set so there was no escape anyway. There is no loss in this, for there was no opportunity.* The point is you wouldn't even choose to have faith. Epiphenomenalism isn't fate, it's lack of actual control because this living thing we're in is just performing it's needed tasks. It wouldn't fate for it to get hit by a car, or choose to be gay, or anything. It'd just but what it did, without consciously choosing so. Your "pretend mind" has no reason to prescribe to faith, because it is not something the body would worry about. Thinking something tastes good and wanting to quench your thrist may very well be evolutions doing (which you don't believe in?), but saying "I believe in God or Zeus or Faeries" is not at all. If we built a robot to perform it's needed tasks as a butler or law enforcement or anything, it wouldn't have any concern for mythology and religion unless programmed to do so--and we most certainly were not programmed to do this by evolution. It would only gain interest in such things if it achieved true self-awareness. *It is possible that anything is possible.* No it isn't. That's self-defeating. If anything's possible, then it's possible for things to be impossible. Existence depends on both possibilities and impossibilities. *This would just be the machine making itself pick up something that your qualia percieves as nicer. The machine however, doesn’t choose it because it’s nicer. It’s nicer because the machine chose it. The machine is simply programmed to choose it for some evolutionary purpose or benefit (or it may even be a defect).* Heroin feels fantastic. Through "defect" or not, our "machines" only seek out what we "think feels nice", like eating. We think things feel nice because they're just going to help us survive. Therefore the thing that feels fantastic would be something we would strive for because it must really help us survive. But we conciously choose to avoid heroin because we'd rather be alert and independent. And what about choosing NOT thinking the sandwhich tastes good? You take a bite, and through evolutionary programming or whatever, you should say "Fantastic! Sustanance! I like this so I will have more.". But you might just not like it. "Bleh, I hate turkey--at least when it's not roasted." An opinion of mere taste that has nothing to do with programming.
-
*"No it isn’t. That’s self-defeating. If anything’s possible, then it’s possible for things to be impossible. Existence depends on both possibilities and impossibilities."* No, the phrase "anything is possible" is self-defeating. The phrase "it's possible that anything is possible" (given an infinite stream of the word 'possible' at the begginning of this phrase ('possible ad infinitum)) is not self-defeating, because although things may be impossible, it clearly shows through the supposed inability to detect these impossibilities (it is impossible to prove a negative; or is it?) *"That is irresponsible and dangerous. Not to mention rude. You think the all-knowing creator of the universe doesn’t have REASONS behind doing things? Of course God follows logic. He understands logic better than anyone I’d assume, with all the answers."* Not if He transcends, or even defies, logic. *"By mindlessly I meant consciously. The body is doing things without any intent or consciouness. If that was the case we would have no reason to be having this debate right now, pretending we want to be having it, as it would serve absolutely no purpose."* Back to purpose again. The debate may have effectual implications on the mind. The mind still needs to gather information, so it is programmed to do so. Then our conscious selves experience the qualia of 'enjoyment, satisfaction, fulfillment, intensity, adventure' whatever labels can be given to the generated feelings from debating. If you want your purpose, then their it is. The machine keeps the ghost alive, so what is good for the machine, ultimately, is good for the ghost (only in that the ghost will remain alive). *"Heroin feels fantastic. Through “defect” or not, our “machines” only seek out what we “think feels nice”, like eating. We think things feel nice because they’re just going to help us survive. Therefore the thing that feels fantastic would be something we would strive for because it must really help us survive. But we conciously choose to avoid heroin because we’d rather be alert and independent. And what about choosing NOT thinking the sandwhich tastes good? You take a bite, and through evolutionary programming or whatever, you should say “Fantastic! Sustanance! I like this so I will have more.”. But you might just not like it. “Bleh, I hate turkey—at least when it’s not roasted.” An opinion of mere taste that has nothing to do with programming."* It would be that we don't choose to not take heroin, we are simply programmed not to, where as the guy next to me is. Not everyone is genetically identical. The machine does not strive for qualia. If something feels 'good', this good feeling will in no way influence the machine. The machine influences the good feeling. The machine is really striving for something totally different, simply because its genes tell it too. If the machine is semi-intelligent (like a computer that 'learns', yet is not self-aware) it might be that the machine uses heroin as the chemical fulfills some 'need' (where the need is not really a need, but genetically, the machine is told, with great inaccuracy, that the chemical is indeed a need) hence the physical symptoms produced when coming off a heroin addiction. So the defect lies in the very fact that the machine does think that it needs heroin. In the case of the sandwich, the machine has decided, for some bizarre gentic reason, that it does not require the specific turkey sandwich that your mum packed you for lunch. It may be a valid reason, too. Due to good living conditions (example: a little starving African child would eat the sandwich regardless because the machine desperately needs sustenance) the machine is able to be picky about what it eats, so it (rememembering that the unconscious mind is part of the machine) calculates that the sandwich is not of high priority, and when taking a bite, recieves information that the meat is high in protein, and then decides that a packet of gummy bears would provide the needed 'boost' of energy to play cricket that evening, so that the body can work out. The machine finds that protein is less of an immediate priority than sugar, and so indulges on the gummy bears, producing qualia for your ghost. Of course, the machine can make erronous decisions. Eventually, that boy may become an overweight, diabetic couch potato with a high cholesterol count, but the machine is not perfect. It may also assess what is needed to ensure sexual progression, maybe immediate health (as in the machine is not bothered about becoming slovenly and dieing middle aged, but does have minor controls to make sure you last at least another eight years, hence why you start to feel a little disturbed about the fact) it just means that whatever the action taken, the machine, not the ghost, provided the underlying motivators. The ghost merely experienced it, and percieved the action, when even still, when you tell someone of the action performed, it still was not the ghost taking credit for it, but the machine doing the talking, and the ghost coming to the 'realisation' that an action was performed. *"it wouldn’t have any concern for mythology and religion unless programmed to do so—and we most certainly were not programmed to do this by evolution."* I'm not convinced. Explain as to how you know the machine would find no need in these things, and how such is impossible. I wrote something earlier on about the very issue of God as a possible benefit to evolution, in the way of ethics. I'll post it here again for your viewing. It probably won't apply that well because it does conflict with hypothetical epiphenomenalism, but you can pull it to peices regardless. *"The point is you wouldn’t even choose to have faith."* It's possible. Your point being? The machine is the one that affirms the 'choice to have faith' (in actual fact not choice) not the ghost. I would experience the feelings and emotions of my faith, while the machine does all the thinking and talking. Merely because of a faith gene that evolved through a benificiary 'need'.
-
-
*No, the phrase “anything is possible” is self-defeating. The phrase “it’s possible that anything is possible” (given an infinite stream of the word ‘possible’ at the begginning of this phrase (‘possible ad infinitum)) is not self-defeating, because although things may be impossible, it clearly shows through the supposed inability to detect these impossibilities (it is impossible to prove a negative; or is it?)* The phrase "it's possible that anything's possible" is saying the phrase "anything is possible" is possibly true, which it is not. *Not if He transcends, or even defies, logic.* No. If logic is malleable then so is morality. If morality is God saying "Uh...ok, so...if you kill that guy it's...bad? Yeah. And if you pet a dog, that's bad...and...uh...no jumping three times in a row! KIll that baby!". If morality is God flipping coins, morality is pointless and arbitrary. We'd be killing the defenseless instead of helping them be defended. Raping because The Big Guy decided that was the ultimate good one day. If that day comes I will stick by my own moral code and gladly go to whatever abyss the non-rapists go too. God did not invent morality and logic. He understands them. *The debate may have effectual implications on the mind.* What mind? We made this independent mind up. It only does what it needs to do, and thinking for or against epiphenomenalism has nothing to do with what we NEED to do. The very fact that we're both humans and one of us could be for it while another against it evidence to this alone. We're not doing what needs to be doing, we're doing what we want to. *Then our conscious selves experience the qualia of ‘enjoyment, satisfaction, fulfillment, intensity, adventure’* There is no purpose to adventure other than independent desires. *If you want your purpose, then their it is* Why would I want a purpose if "I" am imaginary. It is not "me", just imaginary me and this "machine". *The machine keeps the ghost alive, so what is good for the machine, ultimately, is good for the ghost (only in that the ghost will remain alive).* No. You don't even understand epiphenomenalism and you're the one backing it. The machine keeps the ghost alive, so what is good for the machine is good for the ghost, yes. ADVENTURE is not good for the machine. Heroin is not good for the machine. Me having desires for or against epiphenomenalism have nothing to do with what's good for the machine, therefore the ghost wouldn't "think" of it. Me having desires of adventure or "inconsequential" philosophy is good for the GHOST, and the "ghost" alone. But the ghost can't have "good" outside of what's good for the machine. Therefore, epiphenomenalism is a load of garbage. *It would be that we don’t choose to not take heroin, we are simply programmed not to, where as the guy next to me is. Not everyone is genetically identical.* ...Do you even believe this anymore, or are you just being stubborn? We're the same machines. We're humans. We have the same machine-purpose: be a human. Anything that expresses individuality is not some imaginary programmer saying "This robot will SEEM to like checkers, while this one will SEEM to like alcohol". It's ACTUAL individuality. Fake individuality serves no purpose for anything. *(where the need is not really a need, but genetically, the machine is told, with great inaccuracy, that the chemical is indeed a need* WHAT inaccruacy? What are you basing this on? Show me the program schematics that say "This 0 should have been a 1 in this guy, that's why he likes heroin...WELL, we ALL like heroin once we get a taste of it, but he doesn't realize that he shouldn't be liking it". Choice is not a genetic inaccuracy. *In the case of the sandwich, the machine has decided, for some bizarre gentic reason* No. Nothing else. The "bizzare genetic reason" you smacked into is where this ridiculous excuse for a philosophical notion falls apart. It's not bizzare genetic reasoning, it's preference. Individual preference and choice outside of being "programmed". Why would we bizzarely be programmed witht he most random things like "This machine will like cheeseburgers, this machine will be programemd to like the same sex, this machine will be programmed to believe in God, this one will be programmed to like clouds". It serves nothing. *I’m not convinced. Explain as to how you know the machine would find no need in these things* I can't prove somethign WON'T exist. Prove to me that if I built a robot it wouldn't have any desires to pee on Mars. Therefore, we are just like machines that want to pee on Mars--BECAUSE OF PROGRAMMING. Only GENETIC programming! I can "prove" it won't have that because it wouldn't have been programmed to have that. In your magical land of "It's POSSIBLE that it's possibily possible for anything to be possible", yeah, sure. A robot might have desires that it wasn't programmed to without being self-aware. A rock might. The chair I'm on might. PROVE TO ME THAT IT DOESNT....Stop. Just stop. We're not talking about the magical land of make-believe where anything's possible, we're talking about where things either happen or don't. *The machine is the one that affirms the ‘choice to have faith’ (in actual fact not choice) not the ghost. I would experience the feelings and emotions of my faith, while the machine does all the thinking and talking. Merely because of a faith gene that evolved through a benificiary ‘need’.* No, it serves no benefit. It would be much more "machine-beneficial" for us to not care about matters that have nothing to do with preserving the machine.
-
-
Ethics spurred by belief seek to serve both fundamental opposing philosophies: Creation vs Evolution
Judging things by using a law of evolution, i.e comparing morality to what is of benefit evolutionarily, causes a great standstill among society. Benevolence would be measured on who appropriates evolution’s wants and desires suffficiently, rather than any sort of internal clockwork, dogma or rationalisation. Already there is internal conflict as to why one should conform to other forms of set moralities, ie God’s morality, but eventually, one would have greater pressure to conform as it involves eternal reward, eternal value, and the element of the unknown. Hence, we have otherwise morality defficient people choosing to be moral for a specific cause. Evolution would not present such cause. We would either conform to its ways out of fear of being persecuted with finite value, or, we simply see no purpose in living, and cease our very selves, and potientally, the lives of those around us. If evolution is correct, hypothetically, it serves to keep those of us who nurture enquiry in check by creating phenomenal falsehood in the form of belief, and thus, our fear of the unknown, spurred on by belief, is what keeps us from halting our lineage of progression and succession and allowing evolution to continue. What I am trying to say, with little clarity, is that whether or not God exists, the ethical codes and dilemmas presented by such a belief serve to benefit evolution, as evolution, in its grand perfection, has created a subjective, conscious, phenomenally driven being that serves to keep itself (evolution) alive through the lies, falsehood and deceit of a controlling phenomenal mind. -
Do you understand what I mean about belief now? Evolution may be correct, but even if it is, the blind watchmaker still produced religion. In a sense, evolution may not want us (I am aware that it is not a conscious being, but evolution as a means of natural selection) to believe in its own truths. This being, because such organisms would eventually succumb to nihilism, as Kant and Neitsche discovered. (Which is what I was talking about when I said reason and logic destroys itself).
-
I see what you're saying, but the evolution you brush upon is not genetic. Let me break it down to a bare definition (I know you know the definition, I don't mean to be condescending, I just feel it will emphasize my point): Evolution is not with purpose. Creatures don't say "I'm cold, me and my descendents should get fur coats" and some do and some don't. It gets cold, and only the most suitable survive. THe hairless ones die off, and hairier ones tend to survive. Becuase they survived, their descendents are all hairy things, they are products of evolution. Developing morality helped humanity survive. If there were 2 tribes, one with morality and one without, the one without would fall apart and die off. Therefore, tribes that developed moral rules happened to be the ones that could survive. This was not genetic evolution, but cultural evolution. The tribes that discovered fire and agriculture also were more likely to survive, and thus that too became a staple to early civilization. There was no gene in us called "the fire discovering drive". The more observant and smarter beings survived, thus their desecents were too. We were not GIVEN these things BECAUSE of the environment, we had them and therefore were lucky enough to survive. If a strange new sight-based virus hits the world, where everyone who looks at some weird frequency of light dies, only the blind would survive. They were not DESIGNED blind so they would survive. They are not better than us, they are on the whole typically at a disadvantage. But in a scenario where sight gets you killed, they become the advantaged. Evolution has no desires. Certain creatures survie and their descendents share the survivors traits because they're all that's left to mate with and pass on. The (typically) gradual process has been observed and named evolution. If we were purposeley given these things it would not be evolution, but fate.
-
One major problem here. If blind people mate and produce offspring, there children will be born with sight. This is because blindness is caused by a deficiency and is not genetic (I don't know of any sexually hereditary mutations that produce genetic blindness). This is the same with your 'tribe' scenario. If morality were not a gene, then the morality concieved of by the tribe would not be passed on to their children (unless taught through social interaction). Thus, it is not considered a priori but rather that we learn to become moral, but inherently, deep down, we are still vicious savages. So, in essence, the two scenarios appear to have very little link. What if we are to question though, what motivated the tribe elders to originally become 'moral'? It must have been gene motivated. Although the children may only be motivated by the teachings of their parents, the parents themselves, having been the original manifestations of morality, must have obtained the notion and desire to act upon such a notion from somewhere. If these people found it easier to live in harmony together and to come up with rules and regulations, seemingly, their must have been a motivation to do so. An original motivation. One could argue that it was produced by insight, but without any moral society to base this on, and without any motivated desire to conform to the ways of such an idealised society, the idea may have come primarily come from a so called 'morality' gene. It is merely because of the outcome of such a gene that we label it a 'morality' gene. I don't know if I have explained myself well enough, but feel free to make corrections and recommendations. I would also like to know as to how you see your last post as an argument against epiphenomenalism and evolution's 'purpose' (without having to elaborate on what is intended when I say purpose) for religion.
-
-
*One major problem here. If blind people mate and produce offspring, there children will be born with sight. This is because blindness is caused by a deficiency and is not genetic (I don’t know of any sexually hereditary mutations that produce genetic blindness).* True. But the only people to survive would be ones that are blind, and kids that are blind, and so on for generations. Though I'd imagine we'd simply try to blind the children at birth. Bats are genetically blind through evolution. *This is the same with your ‘tribe’ scenario. If morality were not a gene, then the morality concieved of by the tribe would not be passed on to their children (unless taught through social interaction).* It WAS taught through social interaction. Still is. That's why brothers can disagree completely on moral issues. *So, in essence, the two scenarios appear to have very little link.* The point was to separate them, but demonstrate neither were done with an outside influence. *What if we are to question though, what motivated the tribe elders to originally become ‘moral’? It must have been gene motivated* Only the intelligence was gene motivated. By realizing that wanton killing and stealing was not beneficial to holding their packs together, they had to get rid of the ruffians and set precedent that that can't be allowed. *I would also like to know as to how you see your last post as an argument against epiphenomenalism and evolution’s ‘purpose’ (without having to elaborate on what is intended when I say purpose) for religion.* It was against your original post which also didn't have to do with epiphenomenalism aside from saying the evolution was programming us. Evolution doesn't design us, our changes design the evolution. It's a lot like saying history text books designed our fate. That's how evolution actually is. A documentation of what happened. Not what was meant to happen to us.
-
*One major problem here. If blind people mate and produce offspring, there children will be born with sight. This is because blindness is caused by a deficiency and is not genetic (I don’t know of any sexually hereditary mutations that produce genetic blindness).* True. But the only people to survive would be ones that are blind, and kids that are blind, and so on for generations. Though I'd imagine we'd simply try to blind the children at birth. Bats are genetically blind through evolution. *This is the same with your ‘tribe’ scenario. If morality were not a gene, then the morality concieved of by the tribe would not be passed on to their children (unless taught through social interaction).* It WAS taught through social interaction. Still is. That's why brothers can disagree completely on moral issues. *So, in essence, the two scenarios appear to have very little link.* The point was to separate them, but demonstrate neither were done with an outside influence. *What if we are to question though, what motivated the tribe elders to originally become ‘moral’? It must have been gene motivated* Only the intelligence was gene motivated. By realizing that wanton killing and stealing was not beneficial to holding their packs together, they had to get rid of the ruffians and set precedent that that can't be allowed. *I would also like to know as to how you see your last post as an argument against epiphenomenalism and evolution’s ‘purpose’ (without having to elaborate on what is intended when I say purpose) for religion.* It was against your original post which also didn't have to do with epiphenomenalism aside from saying the evolution was programming us. Evolution doesn't design us, our changes design the evolution. It's a lot like saying history text books designed our fate. That's how evolution actually is. A documentation of what happened. Not what was meant to happen to us.
-
-
*The phrase “it’s possible that anything’s possible” is saying the phrase “anything is possible” is possibly true, which it is not.* Sorry, a small correction. What I was meant to say was "It's possible that anything is anything" thus indicating that even if it is possible that something is impossible, the presence of the possibility that it is not hinders our knowledge on such a thing, so neither claim that it is either impossible or possible is more correct than the other, therefore, by negating its own veracity, the statement supports itself, because now possibility is seemingly assumed proven. *"No. If logic is malleable then so is morality. If morality is God saying “Uh…ok, so…if you kill that guy it’s…bad? Yeah. And if you pet a dog, that’s bad…and…uh…no jumping three times in a row! KIll that baby!”. If morality is God flipping coins, morality is pointless and arbitrary. We’d be killing the defenseless instead of helping them be defended. Raping because The Big Guy decided that was the ultimate good one day. If that day comes I will stick by my own moral code and gladly go to whatever abyss the non-rapists go too. God did not invent morality and logic. He understands them."* Kierkegaard provides us with a good example of God defying morality. When Abraham was told by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, through faith, willingly did as was instructed. God, seeing Abraham was faithful, (as it was a test of faith), told Abraham to spare his son at the very last moment. Abraham had faith, that, even if he did kill his son, he was spiritually justified. In my opinion it seems that this is not to say that Abraham can now defy ethics, but I would wager God would still leave him subject to earthly punishment, not because God would be angry and seek ethical punishment be instigated for such an act, but because it is simply to comply with the set order or nature of things. This is also seen when Christ died on the cross. He did not die because God was (although it may have come to this through the order of things) angry with Him, but because such had to be done to comply with the set order of things. Hence, in both cases, the spiritual aspect was different to that observed physically (within nature). Jesus was glorified yet He was punished. Abraham was blessed for his faithffulness yet ethically he appeared absurd and irrational. If a man were to perform the same thing today, the church would not accept him as having been faithful (in contradiction to their teachings) and neither would society. He would be considered a madman. This very problem is the at the very heart of terrorism. Spiritually, the act is considered one that, by faith, would induce immense reward, yet we fail to see this as a motivation in the hearts of the radical and it is considered immoral. Simply put, this is because it is. We can't have people running around blowing each other up because we will end up killing ourselves. However, the faith aspect transcends all this crap, presenting yet a greater trial for the knight of faith; that they must break free from the ethical and aesthetical driven man, even though one must still assume and accept that these aspects will still bear consequence to their actions. This makes it incredibly hard as to which path to follow. I would be inclined to swing both ways. Part of me would consider the plight of ethics, while the other would consider the plight of faith. If I had to kill someone close to me because God told me to, I would think I am going crazy; but in doubt I have already failed my task, so their is no point to endeavour until faith is stronger than doubt. I remind you that Kierkegaard wrote "faith without doubt is faith not worth having" but also, doubt without faith is doubt not worth having.
-
-
*What I was meant to say was “It’s possible that anything is anything” thus indicating that even if it is possible that something is impossible, the presence of the possibility that it is not hinders our knowledge on such a thing, so neither claim that it is either impossible or possible is more correct than the other, therefore, by negating its own veracity, the statement supports itself, because now possibility is seemingly assumed proven.* No. If it is possible for something to be impossible, it means not everything is possible, plain and simple. It doesn't prove that everything is SO possible that even impossibility is possible. It just means not everything is possible. *. When Abraham was told by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, through faith, willingly did as was instructed. God, seeing Abraham was faithful, (as it was a test of faith), told Abraham to spare his son at the very last moment. Abraham had faith, that, even if he did kill his son, he was spiritually justified. In my opinion it seems that this is not to say that Abraham can now defy ethics, but I would wager God would still leave him subject to earthly punishment, not because God would be angry and seek ethical punishment be instigated for such an act, but because it is simply to comply with the set order or nature of things.* I don't believe that happened. If God told me to rape someone as a test of faith, I'd say no and probably stop speaking to Him. *This is also seen when Christ died on the cross.* Jesus was God and it was His choice. That doesn't have anything to do with this. *This very problem is the at the very heart of terrorism. Spiritually, the act is considered one that, by faith, would induce immense reward, yet we fail to see this as a motivation in the hearts of the radical and it is considered immoral. Simply put, this is because it is. We can’t have people running around blowing each other up because we will end up killing ourselves.* Exactly. If God told you do kill innocents, like He "told" them, would you do it? Would you see what they're doing as just? *If I had to kill someone close to me because God told me to, I would think I am going crazy; but in doubt I have already failed my task, so their is no point to endeavour until faith is stronger than doubt. I* Because He is God, He could prove to you that you are not going crazy, He actually is God, and He actually wants you to eat that baby. I wouldn't do it because it is wrong, and God would not be the Person I thought He was. *I would be inclined to swing both ways. Part of me would consider the plight of ethics, while the other would consider the plight of faith.* God wouldn't do things without reason. Following reason is following God. Following what other people totally swear God said thousands of years ago and you are NOT allowed to question it is putting God in their hands and their's alone.
-
-
*"What mind? We made this independent mind up. It only does what it needs to do, and thinking for or against epiphenomenalism has nothing to do with what we NEED to do. The very fact that we’re both humans and one of us could be for it while another against it evidence to this alone. We’re not doing what needs to be doing, we’re doing what we want to."* Weydon, you are too caught up in apparent meaning and purpose. The mind is the unconscious mind, the same mind that pulls your hand away from a hot stove when you touch it. It is to say that this mind, contrary to popular belief, controls ALL actions. We can see in the example of the hot stove that the mind does, appearingly, 'need' to pull the hand away. We assume to think that this means the mind wants itself left alive. But it just does it because it is prgrammed to. No meaning to it. This can be applied to more complex issues too. Seeing even the complexity of such a task as unconsciously pulling a hand away from a stove, then where do we draw the line to such complexity, and assume to say that past a certain point only a conscious mind can control such actions? We could still debate simply because we are programmed to. It may be as simple as the body using it as a method to quell its own genetic motivation to be active. Through evolution, the active people went out and put themselves at risky in particular predicament (regardless of fear, this will to be active would still present dangers) and so these 'active' people were unable to reproduce before they fell victim to irresponsible behaviour. However, some people developed a 'suppression' motivator, merely a renegade gene that caused them to want to sit down and argue about life; this being what we call debate. It may have not started out so complex, but this is evolution for you. It was just a matter of time before someone came up with the theory of epiphenomenalism, and it bears no meaning that (hypothetically) 'truth' was discovered- it just happened merely by chance. Having said this, it solidifies the notion that it's possible that anything is anything, (ad infinitum to negate the impact of the possible impossible), because their would be no verified revelational insight available for us to prove the epiphenomenalist's theory - because we would consider this insight in itself a result of evolution. Some would rely on proving it empirically, but then we would see those who love their proscribed meaning towards life lash out, as seemingly, 'they know better'. I would just smirk as science fails, beaten by those who desire personal value, and continue to believe by faith that God has given meaning due to a life that seemingly has none. *"There is no purpose to adventure other than independent desires."* Then wouldn't that debase evolution (something independent to our naturally selected, required nature?) Adventure is purposeful in allowing the body to find a suitable habitat, and to promote exercise. *"No. You don’t even understand epiphenomenalism and you’re the one backing it. The machine keeps the ghost alive, so what is good for the machine is good for the ghost, yes. ADVENTURE is not good for the machine. Heroin is not good for the machine. Me having desires for or against epiphenomenalism have nothing to do with what’s good for the machine, therefore the ghost wouldn’t “think” of it. Me having desires of adventure or “inconsequential” philosophy is good for the GHOST, and the “ghost” alone. But the ghost can’t have “good” outside of what’s good for the machine. Therefore, epiphenomenalism is a load of garbage."* More assumations based on percieved purpose. I already explained these things. The body either is programmed to act as if such things are a necessity, usually because the programming is either a harmful mutation, or simply, those that take heroin survived to reproduce for some odd reason and now their offspring's machines are programmed to seemingly 'need' heroin. Hence, the person can't stop. *"I can’t prove somethign WON’T exist. Prove to me that if I built a robot it wouldn’t have any desires to pee on Mars. Therefore, we are just like machines that want to pee on Mars—BECAUSE OF PROGRAMMING. Only GENETIC programming! I can “prove” it won’t have that because it wouldn’t have been programmed to have that. In your magical land of “It’s POSSIBLE that it’s possibily possible for anything to be possible”, yeah, sure. A robot might have desires that it wasn’t programmed to without being self-aware. A rock might. The chair I’m on might. PROVE TO ME THAT IT DOESNT….Stop. Just stop. We’re not talking about the magical land of make-believe where anything’s possible, we’re talking about where things either happen or don’t."* I guess we differ then. Your magical land consists of objective known facts, where it aint possible that the world was created five minutes ago and you dont need God to justify meaning because meaning is a metaphysical truth evident or not and everything is always so rational and justified and purpose driven and complete.... you stop. We all have our subjective inferences brought into our debate. If you want a debate without the subjective playing an active role, go and finding something that isn't subjective, objectively. So, if I say I am not convinced, then I guess, seemingly, I am not convinced. Whether your right and I am wrong or not, I am still not convinced. *"No, it serves no benefit. It would be much more “machine-beneficial” for us to not care about matters that have nothing to do with preserving the machine."* Hopefully I explained this well enough in the post 'Ethics spurred by belief seek to serve both fundamental opposing philosophies: Creation vs Evolution'.
-
-
*The mind is the unconscious mind, the same mind that pulls your hand away from a hot stove when you touch it.* It is also the same mind that has held hot objects just to see how long it could touch it. *However, some people developed a ‘suppression’ motivator, merely a renegade gene that caused them to want to sit down and argue about life; this being what we call debate.* This is just ridiculous. It is as impossible to prove this "renegade" (for lack of a logical term to justify its existence) gene doesn't exist as it is impossible for you to prove that tiny dragons are inside of our heads controlling this body. They set up magical rocks on the Earth that make us see their exposed selves as brains. But they're tiny dragons living in us until its time to hatch. You only think you're controlling you and that you're a human. It's actually dragons, and they're making you think that you're thinking, but you're not thinking at all. Prove me wrong. Prove that this is any less justifiable then "We are not choosing to have this debate, our ghost of a mind is because of faulty programming." *Then wouldn’t that debase evolution (something independent to our naturally selected, required nature?) Adventure is purposeful in allowing the body to find a suitable habitat, and to promote exercise.* We already are living in suitable habitat and can excercise without the danger of adventure. Our programming, apparently, sucks. *More assumations based on percieved purpose. I already explained these things. The body either is programmed to act as if such things are a necessity, usually because the programming is either a harmful mutation, or simply, those that take heroin survived to reproduce for some odd reason and now their offspring’s machines are programmed to seemingly ‘need’ heroin. Hence, the person can’t stop.* You did nothing to address "Me having desires of adventure or “inconsequential” philosophy is good for the GHOST, and the “ghost” alone. But the ghost can’t have “good” outside of what’s good for the machine. Therefore, epiphenomenalism is a load of garbage.". And "some odd reason" isn't even a copout argument, it's saying "I
-
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free