Christianity

[Belinda]

It's a matter of fact we are not meat machines . This fact is not because we have a magic gift called Free Will. This fact is due to our experiencing . Meat machines don't experience.

Would you kindly offer proof that "we are not meat machines"?

You're not happy with the proof that seems to have been intended in the final two sentences?

I understand the proof to be something like this:

1 (Premise). Meat machines do not experience.
2 (Premise). We experience.
3 (Conclusion from 1 and 2). We are not meat machines.

It's fine as far as it goes, but given Belinda's additional premise that we lack free will, it implies an epiphenomenal view of consciousness ("experiencing"), which is provably false - see the 2011 Exit Epiphenomenalism: The Demolition of a Refuge article by Titus Rivas and Hein van Dongen.

Opposite of epiphenomenon, experience is the necessary and sufficient condition for all phenomena. To know that is true, apply the method of doubt.

[Harry Baird]

Got it. No shades of grey there.

You got it!

That’s kind of proof positive that ol’ BM doesn’t know anything about Christians…or Taliban, possibly. There’s certainly a whole lot of facts missing from that kind of an assessment. Like, all of them.

If someone sees it as Christians = Taliban = terrifying idiots = psychopaths

then he/she is going to reach some questionable conclusions.

It seems that, like Big Kev, BigMike is EXCITED.

[Harry Baird]

It's fine as far as it goes, but given Belinda's additional premise that we lack free will, it implies an epiphenomenal view of consciousness ("experiencing"), which is provably false - see the 2011 Exit Epiphenomenalism: The Demolition of a Refuge article by Titus Rivas and Hein van Dongen.

Opposite of epiphenomenon, experience is the necessary and sufficient condition for all phenomena. To know that is true, apply the method of doubt.

You believe we lack free will. How, then, can consciousness be anything other than epiphenomenal?

[henry quirk]

Hq, it's my turn to award you first prize, but, alas, I don't have access to the medal icon, so you're going to have to imagine it right HERE => [super-duper first place medal icon awarded to hq]

I'm only the messenger, but I'll take that medal (cuz I have so few)...

Indeed, the whole hard determinism / free will denial gig is an unmitigated debacle, as your transcript aptly reveals.

Well, it's a little bit more than the whole hard determinism / free will denial gig. We pretend to be more than meat machines while bein' nuthin' more than meat machines, that's the claim. We yearn to be more. But, if we're meat machines, how can we pretend and yearn and love and hate and understand and imagine and...?

I posted the whole piece several times in different threads. Haven't had any real disputin' of it. Folks just ignore it or dismiss it. I'm not expectin' a different response here.

[Belinda]

It's fine as far as it goes, but given Belinda's additional premise that we lack free will, it implies an epiphenomenal view of consciousness ("experiencing"), which is provably false - see the 2011 Exit Epiphenomenalism: The Demolition of a Refuge article by Titus Rivas and Hein van Dongen.

Opposite of epiphenomenon, experience is the necessary and sufficient condition for all phenomena. To know that is true, apply the method of doubt.

You believe we lack free will. How, then, can consciousness be anything other than epiphenomenal?

'Consciousness' is not a good substitute for 'experience'. 'Consciousness' implies a conscious subject a self, whereas experience does not imply self. The experience of self is a phenomemon among other phenomena. Since there are no selves there can't be selves that have Free Will, as Free Will pertains to selves.

[phyllo]

We pretend to be more than meat machines while bein' nuthin' more than meat machines, that's the claim.

That's your claim.

I posted the whole piece several times in different threads. Haven't had any real disputin' of it. Folks just ignore it or dismiss it. I'm not expectin' a different response here.

It's not even worth disputing.

[Harry Baird]

Hq, it's my turn to award you first prize, but, alas, I don't have access to the medal icon, so you're going to have to imagine it right HERE => [super-duper first place medal icon awarded to hq]

I'm only the messenger, but I'll take that medal (cuz I have so few)...

That's it!

Indeed, the whole hard determinism / free will denial gig is an unmitigated debacle, as your transcript aptly reveals.

Well, it's a little bit more than the whole hard determinism / free will denial gig. We pretend to be more than meat machines while bein' nuthin' more than meat machines, that's the claim. We yearn to be more. But, if we're meat machines, how can we pretend and yearn and love and hate and understand and imagine and...?

Right, right. A machine doesn't experience, and thus cannot yearn (etc), nor even imagine experiencing, since imagining is a type of experience in the first place, which it (by definition) lacks access to.

I posted the whole piece several times in different threads. Haven't had any real disputin' of it. Folks just ignore it or dismiss it. I'm not expectin' a different response here.

I get it. Some dogmas are too hard for folk to confront, even when it's for their ultimate benefit.

[Harry Baird]

Opposite of epiphenomenon, experience is the necessary and sufficient condition for all phenomena. To know that is true, apply the method of doubt.

You believe we lack free will. How, then, can consciousness be anything other than epiphenomenal?

'Consciousness' is not a good substitute for 'experience'. 'Consciousness' implies a conscious subject a self, whereas experience does not imply self. The experience of self is a phenomemon among other phenomena. Since there are no selves there can't be selves that have Free Will, as Free Will pertains to selves.

Oh, good Lord, let's not get into the "no self" nonsense, but feel free to substitute "experience" back in for "consciousness", and then answer the question.

[Belinda]

Hq, it's my turn to award you first prize, but, alas, I don't have access to the medal icon, so you're going to have to imagine it right HERE => [super-duper first place medal icon awarded to hq]

I'm only the messenger, but I'll take that medal (cuz I have so few)...

Indeed, the whole hard determinism / free will denial gig is an unmitigated debacle, as your transcript aptly reveals.

Well, it's a little bit more than the whole hard determinism / free will denial gig. We pretend to be more than meat machines while ben' nuthin' more than meat machines, that's the claim. We yearn to be more. But, if we're meat machines, how can we pretend and yearn and love and hate and understand and imagine and...?

I posted the whole piece several times in different threads. Haven't had any real disputin' of it. Folks just ignore it or dismiss it. I'm not expectin' a different response here.

Your objection is a worthy objection. Please let me try again.
What happened in the past necessarily happened, same as for machines. What will happen in the future is potential only. Machines' potential is nothing more than what they have done in the past and they themselves can't change or adapt. But beings that are more than their histories can adapt and change.

How are humans more than their histories? One, humans have memories. Two, humans know they will die. This ability to look to a limited future plus memory is all that's needed for humans to have intentions towards their futures and there is no need for anything further named 'Free Will'.

[Belinda]

You believe we lack free will. How, then, can consciousness be anything other than epiphenomenal?

'Consciousness' is not a good substitute for 'experience'. 'Consciousness' implies a conscious subject a self, whereas experience does not imply self. The experience of self is a phenomemon among other phenomena. Since there are no selves there can't be selves that have Free Will, as Free Will pertains to selves.

Oh, good Lord, let's not get into the "no self" nonsense, but feel free to substitute "experience" back in for "consciousness", and then answer the question.

If you don't understand the important theory of existence named Absolute Idealism, in its eastern or western tradition, then that's your loss.

[Harry Baird]

'Consciousness' is not a good substitute for 'experience'. 'Consciousness' implies a conscious subject a self, whereas experience does not imply self. The experience of self is a phenomemon among other phenomena. Since there are no selves there can't be selves that have Free Will, as Free Will pertains to selves.

Oh, good Lord, let's not get into the "no self" nonsense, but feel free to substitute "experience" back in for "consciousness", and then answer the question.

If you don't understand the important theory of existence named Absolute Idealism, in its eastern or western tradition, then that's your loss.

Understanding and agreement are two different matters, which you seem to be conflating. But if you're incapable of answering the question, then I guess that's... my loss too?

[henry quirk]

Phyllo,

That's your claim.

Nope. You need to review up-thread.

*

It's not even worth disputing.

See, Harry? Dismissal.

[Harry Baird]

It's not even worth disputing.

See, Harry? Dismissal.

How odd. I think we need to inquire further. On what basis is it "not even worth disputing"? Apparently, not because it upends your interlocutor's worldview, so... does he already agree with it? Is it consistent with his worldview? If so, how and why? (You can probably think up even more probative questions...).

[phyllo]

Nope. You need to review up-thread.

All 416 pages?

You're the one who keeps using the phrase "meat machines".

You're then one who keeps saying that "meat machines" want more.

[henry quirk]

B,

Your post is off target. You miss, by a mile, the point of my post.

Here's the juicy bit, again...

The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material.

You say...

One, humans have memories. Two, humans know they will die. This ability to look to a limited future plus memory is all that's needed for humans to have intentions towards their futures and there is no need for anything further named 'Free Will'.

Again, I ask...

if we're *meat machines, how can we pretend and yearn and love and hate and understand and imagine and...?

*conglomerations of particles that don't, cannot, understand, make sense of, grasp meaning, etc.