Christianity

[Sculptor]

Although it often pains me to admit I am a Christian, contrary to the above, I do have individual freedom, and I do live my life as best I can to altruistic values. I feel no "social control" over me, anymore than an atheist might.
As far as the imposition of "elite values upon the population" - well, that's UK politics in a nutshell - a bunch of self indulgent materialistic cunts all in bed with their elite silver spoon fed rich mates from school times that get inside first hand knowledge of policies that will benefit their private companys.

Fuck all to do with Christ's teachings.

I'll tell you why you can be free - it is because the power of Christianity has been broken.
You can thanks the skeptics and atheists for that.

Free of the old authority, free of theocracy, yes, insofar as we in the west underwent a scientific enlightenment. However all societies need their moral code whatever that be. Modern Humanism arose via the Protestant tradition and the subsequent age of reason.

Like Roses Grow out of shit

[attofishpi]

Although it often pains me to admit I am a Christian, contrary to the above, I do have individual freedom, and I do live my life as best I can to altruistic values. I feel no "social control" over me, anymore than an atheist might.
As far as the imposition of "elite values upon the population" - well, that's UK politics in a nutshell - a bunch of self indulgent materialistic cunts all in bed with their elite silver spoon fed rich mates from school times that get inside first hand knowledge of policies that will benefit their private companys.

Fuck all to do with Christ's teachings.

I'll tell you why you can be free - it is because the power of Christianity has been broken.
You can thanks the skeptics and atheists for that.

Free of the old authority, free of theocracy, yes, insofar as we in the west underwent a scientific enlightenment. However all societies need their moral code whatever that be. Modern Humanism arose via the Protestant tradition and the subsequent age of reason.

SOme of the greatest scientific thinkers since the middle ages were priests!! some died at the stake for their comprehension against the orthodox views..but still - fuck this atheists are scientists and theists are non thinkers...ridiculoius - I havent got my glasses so this is extremely vexing...so you can all fuck off now!!

[bahman]

So how does the mind do it? Newton's first law states that an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it. There are only four forces to choose from, so which one, from the list below, is it?

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. The strong nuclear force
4. The weak nuclear force

Anything that coherently changes is contingent. By coherent, I mean that the change can be formulated as a set of laws, such as laws of physics. By contingent, I mean that the existence of the thing that coherently changes is due to something else that I call Mind. It can be shown that Mind is nessesary and changeless otherwise we are dealing with a regress (this I discuss in more detail here). It can also be shown that Mind has the ability to experience and cause Qualia. Qualia is a reducible substance, such as matter, energy, thought, feeling, etc. By reducible I mean it can be destroyed and caused (this is discussed in more detail here). Mind should have the ability to experience Qualia otherwise it cannot cause a coherent change in Qualia. Mind should have the ability to cause Qualia as well since Qualia vanishes when there is a coherent change (this is discussed in more detail in the first link).

So you said it was what force? Just say the number that is next to the force in the list above.

Force is another sort of Qualia. Forces also move lawfully/coherently.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[posting error]

[FlashDangerpants]

Qualia is a reducible substance, such as matter, energy, thought, feeling, etc. By reducible I mean it can be destroyed and caused

Shit like this is why 500 page threads aren't worth following.

That's not what 'qualia', 'substance' or 'redicible' mean.

[phyllo]

Qualia is a reducible substance, such as matter, energy, thought, feeling, etc. By reducible I mean it can be destroyed and caused

Shit like this is why 500 page threads aren't worth following.

That's not what 'qualia', 'substance' or 'redicible' mean.

That depends on what 'is' means.

[bahman]

Qualia is a reducible substance, such as matter, energy, thought, feeling, etc. By reducible I mean it can be destroyed and caused

Shit like this is why 500 page threads aren't worth following.

That's not what 'qualia', 'substance' or 'redicible' mean.

Do you believe in coherent change? I call whatever that changes coherently as Qualia. Substance to me is something that exists and has some properties.

[FlashDangerpants]

Qualia is a reducible substance, such as matter, energy, thought, feeling, etc. By reducible I mean it can be destroyed and caused

Shit like this is why 500 page threads aren't worth following.

That's not what 'qualia', 'substance' or 'redicible' mean.

Do you believe in coherent change? I call whatever that changes coherently as Qualia. Substance to me is something that exists and has some properties.

It sounds like I would need a Bahman to English dictionary to find out whatever the fuck you think 'coherent' might mean. And I don't see much value in that investment so I think I will pass thank you.

[bahman]

Shit like this is why 500 page threads aren't worth following.

That's not what 'qualia', 'substance' or 'redicible' mean.

Do you believe in coherent change? I call whatever that changes coherently as Qualia. Substance to me is something that exists and has some properties.

It sounds like I would need a Bahman to English dictionary to find out whatever the fuck you think 'coherent' might mean. And I don't see much value in that investment so I think I will pass thank you.

A coherent change is a change in which two states of a system that is subject to change are related. Like two states of a falling apple.

[Alexis Jacobi]

(I find this sort of argumentation really tedious because, as it seems to me, it actually hinges not so much on intellectual positions but on psychological stances)

I 100% admit to psychology being heavily involved in my contributions to this thread. That's because I know the BigMike type, and that type has caused endless problems in communities with which I am involved, so I have no truck with it.

What "type" do I mean? The atheist/materialist/"skeptic" type, who thinks that all parapsychology is good for is debunking, that science is basically complete and disproves both free will and anomalous phenomena, that its viewpoint is logically and empirically impeccable and that anybody who disagrees is "unscientific", that it is rational to disbelieve in God and any spiritual phenomena, and that Wikipedia "activism" is a great way of spreading skeptic propaganda. I could go on, but that probably gives you enough to go on in terms of understanding why I react to this guy the way I do.

However, there are absolutely solid intellectual positions which absolutely support my psychological reaction.

My reference to 'psychological factors, was, I think, misinterpreted by Henry as some type of undermining statement. However, I would say that a great deal depends on how one takes the term *psychological*. I take it to refer essentially to what is 'psychic' and also in its reference to *the psyche*. Therefore, when we speak about human consciousness, and the consciousness we can understand that we have (because we can *see* it and conceive of it) we are, in my view, speaking about the psyche.

Now, to employ that word involves us in a problematic because it has connotations that are ancient and certainly 'pre-scientific'. Yet it seems to me -- the various pages that I have read here seem to clearly indicate this -- that there is still no adequate way to refer to what we mean when we refer to 'consciousness' and to 'conscious mind'. So it seems that the scientific mode of organizing understanding when it confronts the problem of consciousness and awareness hits a wall that stops it (on one hand) and which it cannot surmount (explain) on the other.

Therefore, to then refer to the 'psyche of man' as the thing that we must consider when we talk about man, and ourselves, becomes if you will necessary and re-energized. But then another level of problem presents itself: that by referring to an ancient, and a laden term, that the temptation arises to include along with it, for example, all the Christian and religious connotations associated with psyche (soul). And so here, when I do mention Christianity as a worldview, I am aware that many (most really) who participate in this forum are anti-Christian -- and not in my view without some good reasons. Therefore, and also, the conversation brings up and involves all sorts of different psychological reactions.

Note that Sculptor, with this type of statement (and it is a type, a sort of boilerplate statement):

Christianity has never been about freedom of the individual will, nor informed conformity to altruist values. Christianity has always been about social control and the imposition of elite values upon the population.

Indicates why, at a psychological-intellectual level he is opposed to Christian metaphysics and why (I surmise) the mere mention of all of that makes him want to vomit. But that indicates a psychological relationship!

My own view, which I have expressed many times, is also my own research project: I do not think it is at all fair to dismiss Christianity or metaphysics nor the existence and reality of man as a *psyche* and as a *soul*. There is needed a very careful, a very grounded, a very delicate sort of mind and perspectival stance to be able to sort through this immense antagonism as exists between one type of mind and another type of mind. If I were to cite an example I would only need to refer to Harry Baird and BigMike as two exemplars.

And this antagonism is rehearsed not just in a relatively friendly conversation on a philosophy forum but is the backdrop of immense philosophical and existential differences of real consequence in our day.

Now what I find interesting is that BigMike declares himself to have the proper and necessary grounding in mathematical logic. But is that not exactly the sort of logic upon which computer technology and AI is based? But BigMike is actually making a statement it seems to me and it is that man's mind should become *logical* in the same sense that a computer is necessarily logical (in a strict mathematical sense). So if I read BigMike correctly he recommends imitating -- becoming like -- a computer program! I do not mean to be at all facetious. There is a sort of *war* against metaphysical modes of thinking and perception. If it happened that the physicalist mode did come to dominate, it would be because the machine-mode or the computer-logical mode dominated. And if it did dominate it would, I think necessarily, involve itself in projects of eliminating the incorrectly-based thinking of those who, retrogradingly, remain stuck in *false consciousness*.

But what I have described here is, I think, what you primarily object to. Because you do notice the *consequences* of this sort of arrogating mode of thought. Ideas have consequences.

Now the curious thing is that Sculptor makes a poignant statement/declaration: "Christianity has never been about freedom of the individual will". But wait! Though I believe I understand what he is getting at since scholastic Christian concepts are intensely conclusive and those conclusions propose/assert that real freedom is only achieved by intense focus of awareness and consciousness within what it defines as *proper categories*, and this can only be interpreted as un-freedom by those who are not convinced of the rightness of the first principles that scholastic Christianity defined, we then get a clearer picture of where Sculptor is coming from (as well as so many who think like him).

Freedom then becomes becoming free from those 'conclusive restraints'.

What is the upshot here? It seems to me that we would all do much better to realize that we are deeply involved and enmeshed in profound perceptual and explanatory shifts with profound philosophical and existential implication.

So instead of the term *fool* and *foolishness* I thought it might be useful to introduce a more complex and laden term: nescience.

[Late Latin nescientia, from Latin nesciēns, nescient-, present participle of nescīre, to be ignorant : ne-, not; see ne in Indo-European roots + scīre, to know; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]

Now it should be clear that we are involved (really on a world level) in idea wars. All around us the idea-wars rage even if we are not completely aware of them. The essential battle and conflict? Defining the world. Defining existence.

Harry is telling BigMike that he has a nescient perspective. BigMike is telling Harry that, no, Harry's perspective as really the nescient one. And others, like Sculptor, agree adamantly and thus the opposed and polarized perspectives are set in battle-posture.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I couldn't care less about your mere assertion, fool.

[Late Latin nescientia, from Latin nesciēns, nescient-, present participle of nescīre, to be ignorant : ne-, not; see ne in Indo-European roots + scīre, to know; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]

It might be helpful to see the term nescience in a more expanded form. For example as defined through the philosopocal system of Vedanta. The word for nescience is ajñāna. Without knowledge-wisdom or knowledge-understanding: a-jñāna.

This notion does introduce a problematical complexity. Because when one asserts to another that their erroneous perspective is caused by 'lack of knowledge' they are reduced to being explained as fools. The word fool comes from an old word bhel: to blow, swell. The word fool comes from a reference to a type of bellows and thus a 'windbag': [Late Latin follis, windbag, fool, from Latin follis, bellows].

My assertion is that this is not quite the right term. Because we are really dealing here with very essential and very appositive core definitions about the nature of reality.

[FlashDangerpants]

Do you believe in coherent change? I call whatever that changes coherently as Qualia. Substance to me is something that exists and has some properties.

It sounds like I would need a Bahman to English dictionary to find out whatever the fuck you think 'coherent' might mean. And I don't see much value in that investment so I think I will pass thank you.

A coherent change is a change in which two states of a system that is subject to change are related. Like two states of a falling apple.

And ... there is some sort of "change" that is not "coherent" but is still "change" is there?

[bahman]

It sounds like I would need a Bahman to English dictionary to find out whatever the fuck you think 'coherent' might mean. And I don't see much value in that investment so I think I will pass thank you.

A coherent change is a change in which two states of a system that is subject to change are related. Like two states of a falling apple.

And ... there is some sort of "change" that is not "coherent" but is still "change" is there?

Sure, like quantum fluctuation. That is however irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that anything that coherently changes is contingent. By contingent, I mean that its existence is due to something else which I call Mind that is changeless. I have rigorous proof for this.

[henry quirk]

So the question is, how does your brain decide which ones are red and which are blue?

No, the question is: where in the brain does the mind that sez I'm not fond of that shade of red but I really like that shade of blue live?

The question is: how does brain produce mind?

The question is: how do electrons, neutrons, and protons, unconscious as they are, produce self-consciousness, I-ness, mind, knowing self-reference, intent, purpose, or even just a simple asserted preference for that shade of blue over that shade of red?

I hold to the position unconscious particles don't, in any quanity or combination, produce mind. I've been offered no evidence to illustrate they do. I, therefore, believe mind is sumthin' other than brain and man is sumthin' more than meat.

But: I could be wrong. I'm waitin' for sumthin', anything, that sez I am.

[FlashDangerpants]

A coherent change is a change in which two states of a system that is subject to change are related. Like two states of a falling apple.

And ... there is some sort of "change" that is not "coherent" but is still "change" is there?

Sure, like quantum fluctuation. That is however irrelevant to the discussion. The point is that anything that coherently changes is contingent. By contingent, I mean that its existence is due to something else which I call Mind that is changeless. I have rigorous proof for this.

And that's where we reach the point that I just can't even be bothered asking any more questions about such stupid shit.

Enjoy whatever weird thing you are on about.