Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 1:08:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

But the mind is the product of a physical entity, i.e. the brain. The mind cannot exist without the brain, and the deterioration of the brain leads to the deterioration of the mind. Vice versa, we can recognize that something is wrong with the brain, by testing the mind.

So what you call as "metaphysical minds" causing things, are actually a physical object causing things.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 1:15:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

"That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things."

Neurology paints a different picture. Neural activity is a physical cause, your mind is actually the effect not the cause.

There is no evidence or reasoning that can lead one to rationally believe that a mind can exist without a brain.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 1:32:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem is that a purely casual (i.e. physical or scientific) explanation would be insufficient in explaining the beginning of the universe, being the summation of scientific laws and principles in the first place.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 1:53:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:32:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The problem is that a purely casual (i.e. physical or scientific) explanation would be insufficient in explaining the beginning of the universe, being the summation of scientific laws and principles in the first place.

Maybe you didn't read the question properly:

"Lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?"

I already explained I was willing to grant and immaterial/ non-physical cause just for the sake of argument, my question is. how you would jump from that to sentience?

Try again.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 1:54:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:53:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:32:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The problem is that a purely casual (i.e. physical or scientific) explanation would be insufficient in explaining the beginning of the universe, being the summation of scientific laws and principles in the first place.

Maybe you didn't read the question properly:

"Lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?"

I already explained I was willing to grant and immaterial/ non-physical cause just for the sake of argument, my question is. how you would jump from that to sentience?

Try again.

...that was why he was disagreeing with it.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 1:56:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:53:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:32:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The problem is that a purely casual (i.e. physical or scientific) explanation would be insufficient in explaining the beginning of the universe, being the summation of scientific laws and principles in the first place.

Maybe you didn't read the question properly:

"Lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?"

I already explained I was willing to grant and immaterial/ non-physical cause just for the sake of argument, my question is. how you would jump from that to sentience?

Try again.

Perhaps you didn't understand my response. Causes can be divided between casual and personal, or more specifically between those caused by physical laws and those caused by minds (as far as determination goes). Since physical laws cannot be the case as the cause must be pre-existent in the first place, this implies a personal or agential cause i.e. sentience.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 1:59:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:15:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

"That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things."

Neurology paints a different picture. Neural activity is a physical cause, your mind is actually the effect not the cause.

There is no evidence or reasoning that can lead one to rationally believe that a mind can exist without a brain.

That is a 'deliberate limited deductive fallacy' while arguing from ignorance.
Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality you are stating there is no positive evidence showing this separation. This is simply not the case. You are just arguing for a limited definition of reality that most do not agree with. Most everyone will cognitively assent that logic and metaphysics are real though, not physical and this is the default, thus KCA does not violate intuition first.

Second, KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real. Of course, it will not be direct physical evidence as they are not physical. Any attempt to impose a necessity of physical evidence for non physical objects is obviously a flawed presupposition and physicality bias.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:00:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:08:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

But the mind is the product of a physical entity, i.e. the brain. The mind cannot exist without the brain, and the deterioration of the brain leads to the deterioration of the mind. Vice versa, we can recognize that something is wrong with the brain, by testing the mind.

So what you call as "metaphysical minds" causing things, are actually a physical object causing things.

Such an interpretation is fallacy of correlation is not causation. You are ignoring the fount of evidence that suggests they are separate by citing evidence they are correlated.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:11:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:00:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:08:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

But the mind is the product of a physical entity, i.e. the brain. The mind cannot exist without the brain, and the deterioration of the brain leads to the deterioration of the mind. Vice versa, we can recognize that something is wrong with the brain, by testing the mind.

So what you call as "metaphysical minds" causing things, are actually a physical object causing things.

Such an interpretation is fallacy of correlation is not causation. You are ignoring the fount of evidence that suggests they are separate by citing evidence they are correlated.

Actually your interpretation is scientifically false.

Neurology has proven that the brain activity that occurs regarding decision making actually happens prior to the conscious being aware of the the choice. Causes usually precede their effect.

Alsom if there is just a correlation between the conscience and neural activity and not a cause and effect relationship, then what is causing them both?

You really haven't put forth any convincing arguments I'm afraid.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:13:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:00:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:08:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

But the mind is the product of a physical entity, i.e. the brain. The mind cannot exist without the brain, and the deterioration of the brain leads to the deterioration of the mind. Vice versa, we can recognize that something is wrong with the brain, by testing the mind.

So what you call as "metaphysical minds" causing things, are actually a physical object causing things.

Such an interpretation is fallacy of correlation is not causation. You are ignoring the fount of evidence that suggests they are separate by citing evidence they are correlated.

It would only be correlation =/= causation if there weren't multiple reasons & theories backing this postulation up, or if it went against the common consensus, or if there were examples where this is not the case. I think that this is a safe causation factor.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:21:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:59:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:15:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

"That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things."

Neurology paints a different picture. Neural activity is a physical cause, your mind is actually the effect not the cause.

There is no evidence or reasoning that can lead one to rationally believe that a mind can exist without a brain.

That is a 'deliberate limited deductive fallacy' while arguing from ignorance.
Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality you are stating there is no positive evidence showing this separation. This is simply not the case. You are just arguing for a limited definition of reality that most do not agree with. Most everyone will cognitively assent that logic and metaphysics are real though, not physical and this is the default, thus KCA does not violate intuition first.

Second, KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real. Of course, it will not be direct physical evidence as they are not physical. Any attempt to impose a necessity of physical evidence for non physical objects is obviously a flawed presupposition and physicality bias.

"Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality"

Straw man fallacy. When did I say they are not separate? I mean, "sight" isn't the same thing as "eyes" but that does't mean that sight can survive without the eyes.

Since I'm not arguing that they were not separate, you were pretty much debating with a version of beliefs I don't hold.

"thus KCA does not violate intuition first."

Yes because macroscopic intuition really dictates what's true for all of reality...You don't actually buy the nonsense you type, do you?

"KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real"

Logic being real actually hurts the KCA, it's the most fallacious and awful argument I have ever heard.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:25:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:56:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:53:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:32:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The problem is that a purely casual (i.e. physical or scientific) explanation would be insufficient in explaining the beginning of the universe, being the summation of scientific laws and principles in the first place.

Maybe you didn't read the question properly:

"Lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?"

I already explained I was willing to grant and immaterial/ non-physical cause just for the sake of argument, my question is. how you would jump from that to sentience?

Try again.

Perhaps you didn't understand my response. Causes can be divided between casual and personal, or more specifically between those caused by physical laws and those caused by minds (as far as determination goes). Since physical laws cannot be the case as the cause must be pre-existent in the first place, this implies a personal or agential cause i.e. sentience.

Can you show how physical laws are the only thing that are casual?
Why can't an immaterial entity have casual causes as well?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:30:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:00:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Such an interpretation is fallacy of correlation is not causation. You are ignoring the fount of evidence that suggests they are separate by citing evidence they are correlated.

No, its not a correlation. Are you telling me that it is not a fact that damage to the brain diminshes the capacity, lucidity, and state of being of the mind?

Furthermore, what evidence do you hve that suggests they are separate? Please, present your evidence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:31:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:59:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:15:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

"That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things."

Neurology paints a different picture. Neural activity is a physical cause, your mind is actually the effect not the cause.

There is no evidence or reasoning that can lead one to rationally believe that a mind can exist without a brain.

That is a 'deliberate limited deductive fallacy' while arguing from ignorance.
Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality you are stating there is no positive evidence showing this separation. This is simply not the case. You are just arguing for a limited definition of reality that most do not agree with. Most everyone will cognitively assent that logic and metaphysics are real though, not physical and this is the default, thus KCA does not violate intuition first.

Second, KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real. Of course, it will not be direct physical evidence as they are not physical. Any attempt to impose a necessity of physical evidence for non physical objects is obviously a flawed presupposition and physicality bias.

Somebody could completely destroy somebody else's mind state and cause no physical damage or dents to the brain. However, if you damage the brain there will be severe damage to the person's mind. It's clear that the brain is like a projector and the mind is like the images a projector produces, nothing the images do can physically harm the machine but once the machine goes then your images (mind) goes bye bye.

This indicates that the "mind" is totally 100% dependent on the brain functioning.
IFLYHIGH
Posts: 5,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:34:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm agreeing with Rational_Thinker on his one. Just because a entity is immaterial does not mean that it is capable of making personal causes and thereby having sentience.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:39:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:31:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:59:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:15:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

"That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things."

Neurology paints a different picture. Neural activity is a physical cause, your mind is actually the effect not the cause.

There is no evidence or reasoning that can lead one to rationally believe that a mind can exist without a brain.

That is a 'deliberate limited deductive fallacy' while arguing from ignorance.
Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality you are stating there is no positive evidence showing this separation. This is simply not the case. You are just arguing for a limited definition of reality that most do not agree with. Most everyone will cognitively assent that logic and metaphysics are real though, not physical and this is the default, thus KCA does not violate intuition first.

Second, KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real. Of course, it will not be direct physical evidence as they are not physical. Any attempt to impose a necessity of physical evidence for non physical objects is obviously a flawed presupposition and physicality bias.

Somebody could completely destroy somebody else's mind state and cause no physical damage or dents to the brain. However, if you damage the brain there will be severe damage to the person's mind. It's clear that the brain is like a projector and the mind is like the images a projector produces, nothing the images do can physically harm the machine but once the machine goes then your images (mind) goes bye bye.

This indicates that the "mind" is totally 100% dependent on the brain functioning.

I would argue that anything which effects the "mind" also effects the brain. It in many ways is a false dichotomy.

For instance, we might say that a traumatic experience that leads to no physical harm (ex. witnessing an act of violence) would influence our mental state.

However, there are neurological consequences. Over-active amygdala and other neurological symptoms would contribute to surface behavoir we call "PTSD."
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:42:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:30:13 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/17/2012 2:00:32 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Such an interpretation is fallacy of correlation is not causation. You are ignoring the fount of evidence that suggests they are separate by citing evidence they are correlated.

No, its not a correlation. Are you telling me that it is not a fact that damage to the brain diminshes the capacity, lucidity, and state of being of the mind?

Furthermore, what evidence do you hve that suggests they are separate? Please, present your evidence.

Again this post shows you have not reviewed the case on both sides, by asking for opposing evidence preferring to arrive at a conclusion of limited personal knowledge. Unless of course, you are actually asking for citations that may be unknown to you.

All that damage to the brain indicates is that the physical interface of the machine causes the interface to function improperly.

Theologically the claim has always been humans are dependent upon their interface, hence the Christian claim 'we get new bodies', not we eliminate a need for a body. We are physical beings.

I will have to determine how to present the evidences and in what order.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:46:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:08:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

The Fool: as much as I don't agree with gilandea it does't follow that hey mind is depend on phyisical reality, if anything the opposite because you experince the world through you mind. and never apart.

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

But the mind is the product of a physical entity, i.e. the brain. The mind cannot exist without the brain, and the deterioration of the brain leads to the deterioration of the mind. Vice versa, we can recognize that something is wrong with the brain, by testing the mind.

So what you call as "metaphysical minds" causing things, are actually a physical object causing things.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:21:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:59:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:15:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

"That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things."

Neurology paints a different picture. Neural activity is a physical cause, your mind is actually the effect not the cause.

There is no evidence or reasoning that can lead one to rationally believe that a mind can exist without a brain.

That is a 'deliberate limited deductive fallacy' while arguing from ignorance.
Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality you are stating there is no positive evidence showing this separation. This is simply not the case. You are just arguing for a limited definition of reality that most do not agree with. Most everyone will cognitively assent that logic and metaphysics are real though, not physical and this is the default, thus KCA does not violate intuition first.

Second, KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real. Of course, it will not be direct physical evidence as they are not physical. Any attempt to impose a necessity of physical evidence for non physical objects is obviously a flawed presupposition and physicality bias.

"Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality"

Straw man fallacy. When did I say they are not separate? I mean, "sight" isn't the same thing as "eyes" but that does't mean that sight can survive without the eyes.

Since I'm not arguing that they were not separate, you were pretty much debating with a version of beliefs I don't hold.

Your are equivocating. Separation clearly meant 'from physicality'.


"thus KCA does not violate intuition first."


Yes because macroscopic intuition really dictates what's true for all of reality...You don't actually buy the nonsense you type, do you?

I believe you do not think rationally and you do not understand the standard lines of reasoning presented at a basic philosophical or theological level.


"KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real"

Logic being real actually hurts the KCA, it's the most fallacious and awful argument I have ever heard.

NOOOOO!!!! My beliefs are being destroyed..!! Wait... you are wrong.

Nothing you stated was a valid response to my earlier statements. I will restate in another post.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:51:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:42:42 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Again this post shows you have not reviewed the case on both sides, by asking for opposing evidence preferring to arrive at a conclusion of limited personal knowledge. Unless of course, you are actually asking for citations that may be unknown to you.

Yes, i have not seen the evidence, which is why i am asking for the evidence, for citation. It is unknown to me. So show it to me, please.

All that damage to the brain indicates is that the physical interface of the machine causes the interface to function improperly.

Theologically the claim has always been humans are dependent upon their interface, hence the Christian claim 'we get new bodies', not we eliminate a need for a body. We are physical beings.

I will have to determine how to present the evidences and in what order.

Okay, go determine how you are going to present the evidence.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 2:54:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 1:56:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:53:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:32:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The problem is that a purely casual (i.e. physical or scientific) explanation would be insufficient in explaining the beginning of the universe, being the summation of scientific laws and principles in the first place.

Maybe you didn't read the question properly:

"Lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?"

I already explained I was willing to grant and immaterial/ non-physical cause just for the sake of argument, my question is. how you would jump from that to sentience?

Try again.

Perhaps you didn't understand my response. Causes can be divided between casual and personal, or more specifically between those caused by physical laws and those caused by minds (as far as determination goes). Since physical laws cannot be the case as the cause must be pre-existent in the first place, this implies a personal or agential cause i.e. sentience.

The Fool: personal doesn't get away from the problem for you still exist within the universe that is objective and absolute. All that exist regard of whether we think of it or not. You may have exclusieve access to your reasons and your thought but that all still in the frame work of the abolute universe. Another example is that if I am at a bus stop and I see a bunny in the grass. and I am the only one who sees it that day. Just because I am the only one who sees doesn't make any less objective. that is O(s) as in subjective is within the frame work of objectivity. So its impossible to know that there is not connection at all.

.. we do know for sure that the brain affect the mind. or drugs wouldn't effect you.

But we can't be sure if there is no bi conditional relationship. such as M<->B
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:06:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:54:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:56:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:53:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:32:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The problem is that a purely casual (i.e. physical or scientific) explanation would be insufficient in explaining the beginning of the universe, being the summation of scientific laws and principles in the first place.

Maybe you didn't read the question properly:

"Lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?"

I already explained I was willing to grant and immaterial/ non-physical cause just for the sake of argument, my question is. how you would jump from that to sentience?

Try again.

Perhaps you didn't understand my response. Causes can be divided between casual and personal, or more specifically between those caused by physical laws and those caused by minds (as far as determination goes). Since physical laws cannot be the case as the cause must be pre-existent in the first place, this implies a personal or agential cause i.e. sentience.

The Fool: personal doesn't get away from the problem for you still exist within the universe that is objective and absolute. All that exist regard of whether we think of it or not. You may have exclusieve access to your reasons and your thought but that all still in the frame work of the abolute universe. Another example is that if I am at a bus stop and I see a bunny in the grass. and I am the only one who sees it that day. Just because I am the only one who sees doesn't make any less objective. that is O(s) as in subjective is within the frame work of objectivity. So its impossible to know that there is not connection at all.

.. we do know for sure that the brain affect the mind. or drugs wouldn't effect you.

But we can't be sure if there is no bi conditional relationship. such as M<->B

If someone imagines running a marathon every day versus someone who actually runs a marathon every day and someone who neither thinks nor runs marathons, the person who IMAGINES running will, with statistical significance, do better than the person who had not thought about running.

"You" (what people call the mind) can train your "brain" and change the neural connections with conscious control.

Again, I fall towards the false dichotomy side of things, since the "mind" is almost invariably some appeal to an irreducible homonculus in our heads telling neurons what to do. In the end, the closest thing we have to "the mind" is the conscious part of our brains which, as has been pointed out, isn't as important in decision making as we'd like to think.

As has been pointed out, things we say the "mind" did are in fact pre-determined by parts of the brain we would normally label "subconscious."

Just like you enter a software program of 0 and 1s which sequentially light up computer screen to form a string of words, simply knowing every inch of the hard drive won't necessarily tell you what the significance of the lit up screen means.

You can go from 0s and 1s to dots on the screen with some empirical study. However, without some concept of "language" the content of the screen has no more significance than random noise.

So, just because the mind and brain may not be different, doesn't mean knowing one automatically translates to decoding the other.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:06:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The refutation of dualism is simple. If they are completly seperate they couldn't interact. But they do interact. So they must share the same reality. They may be differnce form but there definitly a link.

An strong argument goes as such. If more damage to the brain limits your capcity of mind then its makes no sense to assume that when its completly non-functoin you get your facualties back.

Mind you am a realist idealist.

which mean I think we perceive everything through the mind because we could never get out of our mind. We would literally be out of our mind!! And what are we really with out mind.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:08:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 3:06:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The refutation of dualism is simple. If they are completly seperate they couldn't interact. But they do interact. So they must share the same reality. They may be differnce form but there definitly a link.

An strong argument goes as such. If more damage to the brain limits your capcity of mind then its makes no sense to assume that when its completly non-functoin you get your facualties back.

Mind you am a realist idealist.

which mean I think we perceive everything through the mind because we could never get out of our mind. We would literally be out of our mind!! And what are we really with out mind.

I'd think Phineas Gauge would be enough to make people thoroughly question dualism.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:18:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 3:06:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/17/2012 2:54:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:56:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:53:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:32:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The problem is that a purely casual (i.e. physical or scientific) explanation would be insufficient in explaining the beginning of the universe, being the summation of scientific laws and principles in the first place.

Maybe you didn't read the question properly:

"Lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?"

I already explained I was willing to grant and immaterial/ non-physical cause just for the sake of argument, my question is. how you would jump from that to sentience?

Try again.

Perhaps you didn't understand my response. Causes can be divided between casual and personal, or more specifically between those caused by physical laws and those caused by minds (as far as determination goes). Since physical laws cannot be the case as the cause must be pre-existent in the first place, this implies a personal or agential cause i.e. sentience.

The Fool: personal doesn't get away from the problem for you still exist within the universe that is objective and absolute. All that exist regard of whether we think of it or not. You may have exclusieve access to your reasons and your thought but that all still in the frame work of the abolute universe. Another example is that if I am at a bus stop and I see a bunny in the grass. and I am the only one who sees it that day. Just because I am the only one who sees doesn't make any less objective. that is O(s) as in subjective is within the frame work of objectivity. So its impossible to know that there is not connection at all.

.. we do know for sure that the brain affect the mind. or drugs wouldn't effect you.

But we can't be sure if there is no bi conditional relationship. such as M<->B

If someone imagines running a marathon every day versus someone who actually runs a marathon every day and someone who neither thinks nor runs marathons, the person who IMAGINES running will, with statistical significance, do better than the person who had not thought about running.

"You" (what people call the mind) can train your "brain" and change the neural connections with conscious control.

Again, I fall towards the false dichotomy side of things, since the "mind" is almost invariably some appeal to an irreducible homonculus in our heads telling neurons what to do. In the end, the closest thing we have to "the mind" is the conscious part of our brains which, as has been pointed out, isn't as important in decision making as we'd like to think.

As has been pointed out, things we say the "mind" did are in fact pre-determined by parts of the brain we would normally label "subconscious."

Just like you enter a software program of 0 and 1s which sequentially light up computer screen to form a string of words, simply knowing every inch of the hard drive won't necessarily tell you what the significance of the lit up screen means.

You can go from 0s and 1s to dots on the screen with some empirical study. However, without some concept of "language" the content of the screen has no more significance than random noise.

So, just because the mind and brain may not be different, doesn't mean knowing one automatically translates to decoding the other.

The Fool: don;t disagree with any of that. We recognize that we act, and thing happens from consciousnes first. But whether it trully does cannot be confirmed. For like I said it may be A BI CONDITIONAL RELATIONSHIP. A I said
Mind <->Brain they may be acting synomously. because since we see the world through the mind, it follow that we can't see mind, because the lens we see through is mind. For example if you have been wearing blue glasses or let say you pupils have blue colour you will never ever see that shade of blue, because you see through blue.

We also know that if you brain is poked or you there on certain drugs they will effect what you chose to think of in the first place. I don't think we are disagreing as much as you think.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 3:23:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 2:49:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 2:21:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:59:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:15:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

"That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things."

Neurology paints a different picture. Neural activity is a physical cause, your mind is actually the effect not the cause.

There is no evidence or reasoning that can lead one to rationally believe that a mind can exist without a brain.

That is a 'deliberate limited deductive fallacy' while arguing from ignorance.
Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality you are stating there is no positive evidence showing this separation. This is simply not the case. You are just arguing for a limited definition of reality that most do not agree with. Most everyone will cognitively assent that logic and metaphysics are real though, not physical and this is the default, thus KCA does not violate intuition first.

Second, KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real. Of course, it will not be direct physical evidence as they are not physical. Any attempt to impose a necessity of physical evidence for non physical objects is obviously a flawed presupposition and physicality bias.

"Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality"

Straw man fallacy. When did I say they are not separate? I mean, "sight" isn't the same thing as "eyes" but that does't mean that sight can survive without the eyes.

Since I'm not arguing that they were not separate, you were pretty much debating with a version of beliefs I don't hold.

Your are equivocating. Separation clearly meant 'from physicality'.


"thus KCA does not violate intuition first."


Yes because macroscopic intuition really dictates what's true for all of reality...You don't actually buy the nonsense you type, do you?

I believe you do not think rationally and you do not understand the standard lines of reasoning presented at a basic philosophical or theological level.


"KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real"

Logic being real actually hurts the KCA, it's the most fallacious and awful argument I have ever heard.

NOOOOO!!!! My beliefs are being destroyed..!! Wait... you are wrong.

Nothing you stated was a valid response to my earlier statements. I will restate in another post.

I don't think rationally? Coming from someone who believes in a supernatural being from another dimension who can will things into existence with his psychic eternal mind, your criticism doesn't hold much weight I'm afraid (look up the word irony).

Also, philosophy like the Kalam is based on macroscopic logic so using it to describe reality as a whole is irrational and a fallacy in in itself. We live in a universe where one particle and interact without another on different ends of the universe (non locality). You want me to believe that macroscopic logic dictates reality? How about no...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2012 4:46:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/17/2012 3:23:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 2:49:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 2:21:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:59:24 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 1:15:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:34:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 3/17/2012 12:26:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even though the KCA can easily be refuted, lets say for the sake of argument I grant a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful and eternal cause of the universe...How does this indicate sentience exactly?

Most causes are not sentient. If I see a leaf blow down the road I don't automatically think "there has to be some being with a machine blowing this leaf" I think "the wind did it".

I personally believe there is no good reason to believe the universe requires a cause, but even if it did, what makes it more likely that the cause is sentient than the alternative?

Physically determined causes lack sentience. We know of other causes besides the physical. That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things.

We agree for that reason, that indeed numbers, which are metaphysical objects do not cause anything, that leaves a metaphysical object of a Mind.

"That is we as human metaphysical minds cause things."

Neurology paints a different picture. Neural activity is a physical cause, your mind is actually the effect not the cause.

There is no evidence or reasoning that can lead one to rationally believe that a mind can exist without a brain.

That is a 'deliberate limited deductive fallacy' while arguing from ignorance.
Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality you are stating there is no positive evidence showing this separation. This is simply not the case. You are just arguing for a limited definition of reality that most do not agree with. Most everyone will cognitively assent that logic and metaphysics are real though, not physical and this is the default, thus KCA does not violate intuition first.

Second, KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real. Of course, it will not be direct physical evidence as they are not physical. Any attempt to impose a necessity of physical evidence for non physical objects is obviously a flawed presupposition and physicality bias.

"Not only are you saying there is not contrary evidence showing the mind is separate from physicality"

Straw man fallacy. When did I say they are not separate? I mean, "sight" isn't the same thing as "eyes" but that does't mean that sight can survive without the eyes.

Since I'm not arguing that they were not separate, you were pretty much debating with a version of beliefs I don't hold.

Your are equivocating. Separation clearly meant 'from physicality'.


"thus KCA does not violate intuition first."


Yes because macroscopic intuition really dictates what's true for all of reality...You don't actually buy the nonsense you type, do you?

I believe you do not think rationally and you do not understand the standard lines of reasoning presented at a basic philosophical or theological level.


"KCA is supported by the evidence that logic and metaphysics are real"

Logic being real actually hurts the KCA, it's the most fallacious and awful argument I have ever heard.

NOOOOO!!!! My beliefs are being destroyed..!! Wait... you are wrong.

Nothing you stated was a valid response to my earlier statements. I will restate in another post.

I don't think rationally? Coming from someone who believes in a supernatural being from another dimension who can will things into existence with his psychic eternal mind, your criticism doesn't hold much weight I'm afraid (look up the word irony).

Given that the majority consensus of academic philosophers assert the necessity of such a Being compounded with the natural intuition to look toward such a Being, THEN further compounded by the fact that only atheists have a problem with KCA and maybe a one off theist trying to make a name for himself....

gotta wonder if you even know what your talking about. Then I look at the fact your entire paragraph was mere language bias. The wonderment has ended.


Also, philosophy like the Kalam is based on macroscopic logic so using it to describe reality as a whole is irrational and a fallacy in in itself. We live in a universe where one particle and interact without another on different ends of the universe (non locality). You want me to believe that macroscopic logic dictates reality? How about no...

*Sigh
I feel like quoting Pope John Paul II, but I will refrain.