Anyway Out of the Euthyphro Dilemma?

There are many ways out of it - to my way of thinking - not least questioning an over-reliance on versions of a God.

Reducing the dilemma to each of its parts: That about what is good, and that being good by command of God produces many counter-arguments. The wiki article on this is quite informative. There is even a quote from Jay-Z - whoever they are!

What is your view? 

There is no wrong or right, its just a structure in our brain. Good has a higher chance to produce healthy offspring so those creatures or culture(cultural evolution) survives. If it was evolutionary useful to have sex with our bloodline it would be considered good etc....3atronach3

Your initial statement seems to contradict the rest of your post. Perhaps it's my understanding of your terms though: Are you determining good with right and bad with wrong? I f your staemenets are true, then why would different (thriving) cultures have different ideas about what is right and good?

Beacuse people are dumb and diferent. Oh in my language those are almost synonyms.. I was doing some research on the brain and it seems as flexibile as a computer, you could theoraticaly set any program you want in it, the one we have is just the statisticaly best for survival - there is no absolute value in it.3atronach3

Have we evolved to be dumb and is that a good thing? That perspective should follow from your previous premises.

My eyes glaze over when the "mind is like a computer" analagy is used. Sure, in some ways it is because the computer was designed to replicate the probem solving abilities of the mind by human minds. In many ways the mind is not at all like a computer though, especially in the way that "programs" can not be set to work in it.

Species often evolve altruism as a survival mechanism that sacriices individuals for the good of the group.

Yep its good to be dumb beacuse such brains optimize energy use.

Of course you can program a brain, how did nature do it? xD    Its just different hardware, still can be made to do superspecific reactions.

Yep altruism is only there beacuse its good for da species.

Yep its good to be dumb beacuse such brains optimize energy use.

Of course you can program a brain, how did nature do it? xD    Its just different hardware, still can be made to do superspecific reactions.

Yep altruism is only there beacuse its good for da species.

3atronach3

How does being dumb optimise energy use?

Obviously nature used assembly code with C++ runtime libraries. It doesn't seem to compile properly with everyone though. This talk of the brain being a computer is only a rather limited analogy, don't you think? It only serves to reduce things into concepts that you can grasp - if you're into computers.

Altruism in a species may also benefit other species  and I don't think it's only value is that its good for the species. It also relates to individual and communinity benefit and identification.

Brains of people with high intelligence are more prone to forming conections beetwen distant areas of brain wich cost a lot of energy, some brains  also process each data more- they are more active and it all costs energy. Its also possible that since were such a young species presure hasnt eliminated dem dumb ones (or how its going now smart ones, watch Idiocracy its fun)

Scientists have proven that a gene of one species of fly has 2 different alleles. If they have one allel they flap their wings 16 times a second and if they have the other allel they flap them 19 times a second so they seem programable wich is the essence of computers. That is what I mean with the comparison.

My point is that good and bad have no apsolute value beacuse they are just concepts in our brain helping us prolong our species, they are picked by natural selection and as apsolute as the wing flap genes imo.....

Sory for my terrible english im sleepy. Good night :)

Brains of people with high intelligence are more prone to forming conections beetwen distant areas of brain wich cost a lot of energy, some brains  also process each data more- they are more active and it all costs energy. Its also possible that since were such a young species presure hasnt eliminated dem dumb ones (or how its going now smart ones, watch Idiocracy its fun)

Scientists have proven that a gene of one species of fly has 2 different alleles. If they have one allel they flap their wings 16 times a second and if they have the other allel they flap them 19 times a second so they seem programable wich is the essence of computers. That is what I mean with the comparison.

My point is that good and bad have no apsolute value beacuse they are just concepts in our brain helping us prolong our species, they are picked by natural selection and as apsolute as the wing flap genes imo.....

Sory for my terrible english im sleepy. Good night :)

3atronach3

Do you have more information on energy usage in the brain? I would have thought it pales into insignificance in relation to energy usage for physical actions. Compare the energy usage for (say for example) a man driving a bulldozer and a man digging a hole. Which man would you think is more likely to get fatter and which one uses more mental capacity?

Not all flys flap their wings at 16 or 19 times a second. The speed would surely relate to aerodynamics, air pressure and the physical characteristics of the insect. I don't think you could program a fly to flap its wings at variable rates. And if you could, I don't think it proves anything in particular about the human mind being a computer.

Ideas of good and bad are spread across many brains and those concepts differ between different societies, so I think they are more than products of natural selection.

A monkey was offered a banana, and of course he took it. It was hooked to a trap wich would torture the monkey in the adjacent cage making him scream. The other monkey could only hear him scream. He only took the banana twice before he starved himself for a week. Even if that wasnt the case I dont see how culture is excluded from natural selection since its transferable.

 It doesnt matter how many times it claps it wings it was an example just how defined we are.

The computer metaphore is so useful that today theres a branch of neurology called computational neuroscience. If you think youre the one doing the job youre wrong. Your subconcious does tons of work every day and your brain is more active when you sleep. Its energy consumption is around 20% of total bazal energy consumption and it can vary greatly. I do not know what you thought the brain is. It is an organ wich receives, stores and processes information in the goal to maximise survival chance. It has many structures wich are totaly primal and unavailable to the concious mind. For instance humor is a mechanism wich reacts on ingruence to prevent neuro connections wich produces wrong iideas. It dumps the action potential into the muscles of our tummy and we laugh. Looking away(the thinking look as refered to in my language) is another mechanism wich partialy shuts down the visual cortex and uses it action potential for "thinking". Its not like brain is a heap of white and grey matter, it has structures and is extremely organised - an extrordinary logical machine and the most complex thing known to man.

I would recommend the book basics of neurology wich has a nobel winer stamp on it its marvelously written.

Im suprised to see that atheists know nothing of brain when its the rational start on a quest to seek answers of our existence. Didnt you abandon God beacuse you sought an explanation to your existence? Anyways, you guys seem uninterested of the subject so we should probably discontinue the discusion.

A monkey was offered a banana, and of course he took it. It was hooked to a trap wich would torture the monkey in the adjacent cage making him scream. The other monkey could only hear him scream. He only took the banana twice before he starved himself for a week. Even if that wasnt the case I dont see how culture is excluded from natural selection since its transferable.

 It doesnt matter how many times it claps it wings it was an example just how defined we are.

3atronach3

I agree that we are defined by our environment, but I don't think the programming analogy holds that much water. Since many species live in close cultures with defined roles, it can not be excluded from natural selection. I thought you were saying that it does matter how many times wings are flapped. I think it matters, but due to environmental factors.

The computer metaphore is so useful that today theres a branch of neurology called computational neuroscience. If you think youre the one doing the job youre wrong. Your subconcious does tons of work every day and your brain is more active when you sleep. Its energy consumption is around 20% of total bazal energy consumption and it can vary greatly. I do not know what you thought the brain is. It is an organ wich receives, stores and processes information in the goal to maximise survival chance. It has many structures wich are totaly primal and unavailable to the concious mind. For instance humor is a mechanism wich reacts on ingruence to prevent neuro connections wich produces wrong iideas. It dumps the action potential into the muscles of our tummy and we laugh. Looking away(the thinking look as refered to in my language) is another mechanism wich partialy shuts down the visual cortex and uses it action potential for "thinking". Its not like brain is a heap of white and grey matter, it has structures and is extremely organised - an extrordinary logical machine and the most complex thing known to man.

I would recommend the book basics of neurology wich has a nobel winer stamp on it its marvelously written.

3atronach3

Computational neuroscience is a modelling concept - an attempt to explain our minds using analogies. In the Victorian era it was fine watchmaking that was at the cutting edge of human understanding. Our minds were considered like finely crafted mechanical machines then too.

Im suprised to see that atheists know nothing of brain when its the rational start on a quest to seek answers of our existence. Didnt you abandon God beacuse you sought an explanation to your existence? Anyways, you guys seem uninterested of the subject so we should probably discontinue the discusion.

3atronach3

I'm surprised that atheists think they know about what other atheists think. I realised a long time ago that not all atheists know or think the same thing. I find it far more beneficial to explain what you think and ask questions, rather than pre-judge what other people think. I suggest you read "Incognito" by David Engleman It is a fascinating book which does not settle for simplistic analogies in aiming to explain human consciousness.

Is being "uninterested in the subject" the same as disagreeing with you? I suggest that it is the opposite and that cognitive dissonance leads you to withdraw, citing criticisms about others knowing nothing. It reminds me of a typical withdrawal from discussion by a proponent of theism, who does not what to explore the underlying concepts because it damages their own rigid perspective. 

 Well we are atheists so I can proclaim your intelligence inferior. You do hold the analytical worldview wich is good but you should probably learn more pyshics and chemistry, so you could use their concepts to think. It was just my wishfull thinking that atheists were intelligent like me so that I dont have to be alone in this...

 Well we are atheists so I can proclaim your intelligence inferior. You do hold the analytical worldview wich is good but you should probably learn more pyshics and chemistry, so you could use their concepts to think. It was just my wishfull thinking that atheists were intelligent like me so that I dont have to be alone in this...

3atronach3

Your proclamations only really mean anything to you though. Until you substantiate them they are merely misplaced attempts at insult. We can compare credentials if you like. I'm quite proud of my post-graduate qualifications and experience. My assumption is that you are fairly young. I'm really old. Oscar Wilde said "I'm not young enough to know everything" and I tend to agree with him.

I do realise that physics and chemistry can not explain the workings of the brain and of the mind. Athests are only united in a particular disbelief. Their reasonings for that can be as varied and coloured as the diversity of life.

As an ex-school teacher, I've learned that there are many types of intelligence. Perhaps your vast intelligence is too directed into one dimension. For example I find it may be lacking in the interpersonal area. Good luck with your lonely journey.

Why would lack of intelligence be insulting? Im sorry my worldviev is far from conventional so sometimes I forget that stuff.

2 bad bean-with-bacon isnt here, from his posts I see that he posseses great intelligence and thats how I ended up in here. 

Indeed I am young however I am extremely gifted and cursed. I do not beleive in credentials as I have witnessed many times how little one can know and be a master of science, rather I find those who have no logical gaps in their thinking. Im soon going to be a biochemist and I was often admired by my peers for my seemingly magical abilities. I have never met another person like me and most likely it will never happen :( .... Btw Im gifted in many areas, including relations. I only feel lonely cuz nobody has my questions....

So when is this forum closing?

Why would lack of intelligence be insulting? Im sorry my worldviev is far from conventional so sometimes I forget that stuff.

2 bad bean-with-bacon isnt here, from his posts I see that he posseses great intelligence and thats how I ended up in here. 

Indeed I am young however I am extremely gifted and cursed. I do not beleive in credentials as I have witnessed many times how little one can know and be a master of science, rather I find those who have no logical gaps in their thinking. Im soon going to be a biochemist and I was often admired by my peers for my seemingly magical abilities. I have never met another person like me and most likely it will never happen :( .... Btw Im gifted in many areas, including relations. I only feel lonely cuz nobody has my questions....

So when is this forum closing?

3atronach3

Anything that gets termed as inferior (when comparing it to your own ability without giving objective examples) seems like a directed insult, although I feel less insulted and slightly sorry for you instead.

This is because; despite your "magical" abilities and unique intelligence, you don't seem to be able to explain your ideas well here, or respond to specific points raised against them.

It seems that you prefer instead to side-track the debate into generic comparisons over some nebulous difference of intelligence. That tactic, if used earnestly, seems to indicate an illusory superiority complex. I believe it is a psychological aberration and is an unrealistic evaluation of one's abilities, especially given the evidence of ideas discussed and responses made in written form here.

This forum closing is down to how Gamespot wish to roll out their new web technology. I have been advised that the entire union will turn into a forum on the new site and retain all the threads to-date there.

Thx for the info :)

Imagine 9,999,999 people with a 100x microscope interested in a 125x picture, they all think with their emotions and thats how they fill the blank and the the tenth milion man comes with a 120x microscope and he gives an image wich is more faithfull but very depressing. Of course you shouldnt beleive me beacuse if u cannot see it yourself its something you must beleive and also by statistic im probably another 100x man. Problem is I cannot lend you my "microscope".

Thx for the info :)

Imagine 9,999,999 people with a 100x microscope interested in a 125x picture, they all think with their emotions and thats how they fill the blank and the the tenth milion man comes with a 120x microscope and he gives an image wich is more faithfull but very depressing. Of course you shouldnt beleive me beacuse if u cannot see it yourself its something you must beleive and also by statistic im probably another 100x man. Problem is I cannot lend you my "microscope".

3atronach3

You don't have a microscope - you have a trumpet. The problem when blowing your own trumpet too hard is that other people won't like the sound it makes. It is far better to be humble and unnassuming while demonstrating intelligence through explanation, questioning and dialogue.

The best way to assume intellectual superiority is with some form of objective result: For example; a cogent argument, accurate and non-defensive responses to questioning, or a clear explanation of a concept you are trying to get across would earn such respect through a demonstration of your intellectual faculty.

Sticking to the topic rather than resorting to these deviations to boost yourself while belittling your audience woud make a more of an impression. Your evasion clouds any points you were trying to make with self-aggrandisement of the most unflattering degree.

I find that failure to debate systematically actually shows a lack of intellect and only leaves the dissonent sound of a badly played trumpet to my ears. When you are ready to resume the debate without referring to your own ego to support you, I'll be here to debate with you further.

So do you guys beleive that there are talented people or? What do you think very intelligent people are like?

Im sorry I replied so much later-was busy.

So do you guys beleive that there are talented people or? What do you think very intelligent people are like?

Im sorry I replied so much later-was busy.

3atronach3

Intelligent people do more than just say they are very intelligent. Talented people have some talent that they can display. Intelligence (in the classical sense), as I wrote earlier, can (and should) be expressed in a quality of argument and the transfer of knowledge and justification of a view in a discussion. Intelligence is a means to an end, rather than some crutch you can rest on.

I think people who just say they are very intelligent really show their insecurity. I don't think that empty sort of "I'm more intelligent than you are" boast is conducive to actually having super intelligence, since it does not take a particularly intelligent person to note this hypocracy.

People have talents in all sorts of areas - in the way that people have different intelligences of varying degrees. Usually, an excess of intelligence in one area is off-set by a lacking in other areas. For instance, the archetypal sports hero is not always great at maths, the most sociably successful people are often vacuous, whereas the science boffin often has trouble relating to others, etc. This idea references Gardener's theory of multiple intelligences.

If you are as intelligent as you say you are, then why haven't you been able to provide a more sustainable discussion in the threads you've contributed to? Why do you now focus on pushing home some point about your superior intelligence without having to justify it? Why would you think that people here are less intelligent than you are? Why should it matter to you?

Why would there be justice in talent distribution? That seems like a very unreasonable concept to me, especialy for an atheist. That is kinda true for intelligence though as its shown to be linked with unhappines.

Im kinda losing hope that most people can understand anything as I am shocked daily by people who have have masters in some areas and they still dont understand stuff. It is pointless to argue with someone who cannot understand simple concepts but I am confused how to learn further if nobody knows anything...

I argumented it well imo but I guess you need more breakdown due to your level of knowledge in chemistry/pyshics/biology or your intelligence.

I agree many people proclaim themselves intelligent destroying the credibility of such a statement. Im just trying to find the best way to exist and since im different I need to create it myself...

Why would there be justice in talent distribution? That seems like a very unreasonable concept to me, especialy for an atheist. That is kinda true for intelligence though as its shown to be linked with unhappines.

Im kinda losing hope that most people can understand anything as I am shocked daily by people who have have masters in some areas and they still dont understand stuff. It is pointless to argue with someone who cannot understand simple concepts but I am confused how to learn further if nobody knows anything...

I argumented it well imo but I guess you need more breakdown due to your level of knowledge in chemistry/pyshics/biology or your intelligence.

I agree many people proclaim themselves intelligent destroying the credibility of such a statement. Im just trying to find the best way to exist and since im different I need to create it myself...

3atronach3

Where would you get the idea of "justice" in talent distribution from?

Why would you think that certain concepts outside of theism are unreasonable to an atheist? Is it because you think atheism needs intelligence? Are you not aware of intelligent theists?

Perhaps other people know more than you do and you dismissing them is part of a dissonance you have with acquiring knowledge and seeing other sides to discussions. Or perhaps you have some fear of being wrong. I think it is because you are not well versed in the mechanics of debate.

You have not really clarified anything in your posts here. You produced seemingly made-up analogies that I found fault in. You did not supply much justification or references for your points - even when asked directly. How would you know what my level of knowledge is or my intelligence is from some statements made in a forum? Don't you think it premature to judge people like that when you haven't demonstrated any superior knowledge in those areas yourself?

Perhaps you give something away when you say "most people don't understand anything" and people's apparent lack of knowledge is "shocking" to you. I'd suggest that the reality is more about your own understanding of most other people and your own limitations and inflexibility in comprehending and disecting their ideas, than any fault on their parts.

When you say it is pointless to argue with someone who can not understand simple concepts, I'd like to ask you what you think the point of arguing is? Also, how can you possibly learn anything if nobody knows anything? - From first principles? Good luck re-inventing that wheel!

I see no reason why someone wouldnt be beatifull, intelligent and conform at the same time.

Without God our world is reduced to 3 particles and 3 kinds of interactions and some emergent charachteristics.  With some knowledge of pyshics you can easily check if they would allow some statement to be true and you would be right 95% of the time. I do not need to invent anything I just have to gather models wich best describe the world and discard those people choose cuz they like them. The macroworld is statistical and determined- just remember that 18 grams of water contain 602200000000000000000000 molecules so using average values gives proper resuts. Humans also experience in huge timeframes enabling a lot of interactions making it even more acceptable to use average values. Seeing that we can get almost same results in separate measures with that kind of interactions what can we do but say its 99,99999999999999999999% determined. Just look how determined pressure on our size and time scale is. Particles in the top of our athmosphere still affect us and even thought such pressure is a result of unimaginably complex system of particle interaction it always gives the same result when measured. For that we need again 99,99% determined reality imo.

Without God we are almost certainly products of evolution wich started by abiogenesis. This gives an important criteria in wich you can check some models as every charachteristic of a creature must have a role in making healthy offspring(or evolution speed in rare cases). When looking at the brain and its complex structure we cant realy jsut say oh osmosis here conformation changing molecule here bam. Its much better to go by the purpose criteria. Before and if we discus this I would like you to understand what a program is from my perception.

When I said argue I forgot of its negative conotations in english. Discuss is what I had in my mind.
Very intelligent people do not beleive in traditional religions, not nowadays atleast. None of the last great scientist who wondered about the nature of our world didnt, like Tesla(even tho he grew up in a very religious family) and Einstein.

Since you that old you must have had seen an analog programator, often used in (very)old washing machines?

I see no reason why someone wouldnt be beatifull, intelligent and conform at the same time.

3atronach3

Neither do I. Beauty and intellegence are fairly subjective criteria though. Can describe yourself as beautiful, intelligent, and self-effacing too? I see being self-effacing as a more desirable trait than beauty or intelligence.

 

Without God our world is reduced to 3 particles and 3 kinds of interactions and some emergent charachteristics.  With some knowledge of pyshics you can easily check if they would allow some statement to be true and you would be right 95% of the time.

3atronach3

What does God have to do with how many particles and interactions there are? I thought there were (many - at least 61 and counting) more than the three types of particle and that you are making an over-reductive category error. Your precision in that over-simplistic description is rather eclipsed by your further admission that you'd be wrong one time in 20 anyway. Physics does not necessarily answer the existential questions being discussed here.

 

I do not need to invent anything I just have to gather models wich best describe the world and discard those people choose cuz they like them. The macroworld is statistical and determined- just remember that 18 grams of water contain 602200000000000000000000 molecules so using average values gives proper resuts. Humans also experience in huge timeframes enabling a lot of interactions making it even more acceptable to use average values. Seeing that we can get almost same results in separate measures with that kind of interactions what can we do but say its 99,99999999999999999999% determined.

Just look how determined pressure on our size and time scale is. Particles in the top of our athmosphere still affect us and even thought such pressure is a result of unimaginably complex system of particle interaction it always gives the same result when measured. For that we need again 99,99% determined reality imo.

3atronach3

You are pulling that percentage out of your hat. Your premise that the world is determined does not seem to link with the amount of water molecules in 18 grams. That seems like you don't understand the question in reducing existential questions to physical criteria while ignoring philosophy. Life decisions are about more than physical interactions, else we would all be, think and do the same thing.

 

Without God we are almost certainly products of evolution wich started by abiogenesis. This gives an important criteria in wich you can check some models as every charachteristic of a creature must have a role in making healthy offspring(or evolution speed in rare cases). When looking at the brain and its complex structure we cant realy jsut say oh osmosis here conformation changing molecule here bam. Its much better to go by the purpose criteria. Before and if we discus this I would like you to understand what a program is from my perception.

3atronach3

Are you re-defining what a program is now? Many theists still hold that we a products of evolution/abiogenesis and cite God as a influencing factor. What does osmosis have to do with brain function?

 

When I said argue I forgot of its negative conotations in english. Discuss is what I had in my mind. 

3atronach3

So did I - I didn't infer any negative aspects to debate, arguing or discussion: I think they are healthy, which made me wonder at your remark. What is the purpose - do you think - of having a discussion then? Please note that you said it was pointless with someone who does not understand "basic concepts". I thought you were referring to our discussion.

  

Very intelligent people do not beleive in traditional religions, not nowadays atleast. None of the last great scientist who wondered about the nature of our world didnt, like Tesla(even tho he grew up in a very religious family) and Einstein.

Since you that old you must have had seen an analog programator, often used in (very)old washing machines?

3atronach3

Do you believe people like Francis Collins are very intelligent? Your absolutism is slightly frightening to me. I don't know what an "analog programator" is, despite having a healthy interest and experience in electronics and circuit design (especially vintage). Perhaps something was lost in translation. I can guess that you refer to a complex mechanical timer switch?? What does that have to do with anything?

[QUOTE="3atronach3"]

I see no reason why someone wouldnt be beatifull, intelligent and conform at the same time.

RationalAtheist

Neither do I. Beauty and intellegence are fairly subjective criteria though. Can describe yourself as beautiful, intelligent, and self-effacing too? I see being self-effacing as a more desirable trait than beauty or intelligence.

If one is too modest others will just ignore him. Beauty is subjective to a measure, some people will be atractive to 90% of people and some to 10%. Intelligence is complex but there has to be atleast one component of it that can be compared(has apsolute value) beacuse IQ measuring is used by scientists for a long time so obs it has some truth in it.

 

Without God our world is reduced to 3 particles and 3 kinds of interactions and some emergent charachteristics.  With some knowledge of pyshics you can easily check if they would allow some statement to be true and you would be right 95% of the time.

3atronach3

What does God have to do with how many particles and interactions there are? I thought there were (many - at least 61 and counting) more than the three types of particle and that you are making an over-reductive category error. Your precision in that over-simplistic description is rather eclipsed by your further admission that you'd be wrong one time in 20 anyway. Physics does not necessarily answer the existential questions being discussed here.

So you are agnostic? I know that that no intelligent man can claim hes totaly atheist but you seem really agnostic. I meant not our universe but our world, its is practicly useles to speak of quarks as theyre always in the neutron and proton structure(wich is highly stable and always the same). So our world is electron, neutron and proton and nuclear, gravitational and electric force. The equations for their interaction are precise so another argument for determination. Those laws and particles were here before humans and humans were constructed upon them by evolution exploiting what it could.

 

I do not need to invent anything I just have to gather models wich best describe the world and discard those people choose cuz they like them. The macroworld is statistical and determined- just remember that 18 grams of water contain 602200000000000000000000 molecules so using average values gives proper resuts. Humans also experience in huge timeframes enabling a lot of interactions making it even more acceptable to use average values. Seeing that we can get almost same results in separate measures with that kind of interactions what can we do but say its 99,99999999999999999999% determined.

Just look how determined pressure on our size and time scale is. Particles in the top of our athmosphere still affect us and even thought such pressure is a result of unimaginably complex system of particle interaction it always gives the same result when measured. For that we need again 99,99% determined reality imo.

3atronach3

You are pulling that percentage out of your hat. Your premise that the world is determined does not seem to link with the amount of water molecules in 18 grams. That seems like you don't understand the question in reducing existential questions to physical criteria while ignoring philosophy. Life decisions are about more than physical interactions, else we would all be, think and do the same thing.

Why would we do the same things, we have different DNA and brain also depends on stimuli and other enviromental factors. Of course that percentage is pulled out of the hat, but do you not understand the complexity of all particles of atmosphere interact ing over a place and always giving the same pressure.....

 

Without God we are almost certainly products of evolution wich started by abiogenesis. This gives an important criteria in wich you can check some models as every charachteristic of a creature must have a role in making healthy offspring(or evolution speed in rare cases). When looking at the brain and its complex structure we cant realy jsut say oh osmosis here conformation changing molecule here bam. Its much better to go by the purpose criteria. Before and if we discus this I would like you to understand what a program is from my perception.

3atronach3

Are you re-defining what a program is now? Many theists still hold that we a products of evolution/abiogenesis and cite God as a influencing factor. What does osmosis have to do with brain function?

 

When I said argue I forgot of its negative conotations in english. Discuss is what I had in my mind. 

3atronach3

So did I - I didn't infer any negative aspects to debate, arguing or discussion: I think they are healthy, which made me wonder at your remark. What is the purpose - do you think - of having a discussion then? Please note that you said it was pointless with someone who does not understand "basic concepts". I thought you were referring to our discussion.

  

Very intelligent people do not beleive in traditional religions, not nowadays atleast. None of the last great scientist who wondered about the nature of our world didnt, like Tesla(even tho he grew up in a very religious family) and Einstein.

Since you that old you must have had seen an analog programator, often used in (very)old washing machines?

3atronach3

Do you believe people like Francis Collins are very intelligent? Your absolutism is slightly frightening to me. I don't know what an "analog programator" is, despite having a healthy interest and experience in electronics and circuit design (especially vintage). Perhaps something was lost in translation. I can guess that you refer to a complex mechanical timer switch?? What does that have to do with anything?

He has elevated intelligence for sure however I would much rather agree with Sam Harris. Even very intelligent people can be blinded with wishes besides universe has laws set for life argument is invalid since multiverse theory is around...

Sorry for being lazy and posting in this form.

If one is too modest others will just ignore him. Beauty is subjective to a measure, some people will be atractive to 90% of people and some to 10%. Intelligence is complex but there has to be atleast one component of it that can be compared(has apsolute value) beacuse IQ measuring is used by scientists for a long time so obs it has some truth in it.

3atronach3

I think that is rubbish about being modest and being ignored. I think often the reverse is true. Modesety isn't always about what you say, it is more about the way you say it. The IQ test is not a reliable measure of intelligence, since you can practice it and improve your scores without getting more intelligent. Also, at best it only measures a particular sort of intelligence and has nothing to say about creativity and lateral or "out of the box" thinking. It seems rather outdated too.

 

So you are agnostic? I know that that no intelligent man can claim hes totaly atheist but you seem really agnostic. I meant not our universe but our world, its is practicly useles to speak of quarks as theyre always in the neutron and proton structure(wich is highly stable and always the same). So our world is electron, neutron and proton and nuclear, gravitational and electric force. The equations for their interaction are precise so another argument for determination. Those laws and particles were here before humans and humans were constructed upon them by evolution exploiting what it could.

3atronach3

I'm an agnostic atheist and I think faulty claims to absolute knowledge drive my belief in atheism through my agnosticism. Atheism and agnosticism, just like theism, are not the necessarily the domains of intelligent people. Your generalisations over particle physics seems to be rather simplistic, since we are both aware of the complex makeup of atoms as far as we know, but there is certainly a huge amount about particle physics still left undiscovered; hence establishments like CERN.

I don't think that predictable physics is a good basis for an argument against free will. In the same way, chaos theory, quantum computing, etc could be used as real-world indeterminate souces to counter that proposition.

 

Why would we do the same things, we have different DNA and brain also depends on stimuli and other enviromental factors. Of course that percentage is pulled out of the hat, but do you not understand the complexity of all particles of atmosphere interact ing over a place and always giving the same pressure.....

3atronach3

Pulling things out of a hat does not aid your point well. I understand how we have gravity (to an extent - although the true nature of gravitational force is still elusive to all) and also know that pressure varies with time, environmental conditions and height. I don't understand how you relate that to a deterministic outlook that prevents free will though.

 

He has elevated intelligence for sure however I would much rather agree with Sam Harris. Even very intelligent people can be blinded with wishes besides universe has laws set for life argument is invalid since multiverse theory is around...

Sorry for being lazy and posting in this form.

3atronach3

That seems to be at odds with your evaluation against intelligent non-atheists. There are many, many other examples of people who compartmentalise their beliefs away from their own intelligent discoveries and creations. Others, like Georges LeMaitre, drove new discovery (at least partially) because of their religious beliefs.

This is not about who you side with on the belief scale, it is about rebutting your erroneous view that "Very intelligent people do not believe in traditional religions, not nowadays at least." I don't think the multiverse is a theory, but an interesting hypothesis instead. I think it important to distinguish between them, while also noting that even the most concrete theories are only current models of human understanding, rather than absolute truth.

Predictable pyshics= predictable humans= no free will

 It is truly useless for me to tell you that macro world is so predictable, grab a pyshics basics book and soon you shall see it is the truth. Macroworld is predictable beacuse of decoherence and I do not see how quantum model would help you beacuse some argue it is more deterministic than classic pyshics. Our whole body relies on the fact that laws of nature are so strict- look at the enzymes wich have to have an extremely precise structure.. 

You say we only have models, and its the truth. That is why those models should be taken lightly, you should try to understand my thought and not criticise the vessel it uses(playing with semantics). It doesnt matter that IQ test can be cheated, it can be done right and it shows that some are more capable and intelligence is the most out of the box thing there is as you cannot learn it. Creativity is a terible concept wich I hate. Creativity tests are ussualy how much jibberish you can say in one minute. 

Multiverse is accepted by many prominent people, I think it will soon be a "fact",

The macroworld is predictable however I am aware that science is still lacking so I say that free will can be an emergent charachteristic but it probably isnt.

So heres one definiton of a program:

 A set of coded instructions that enables a machine, especially a computer, to perform a desired sequence of operations.

Trying for a lot of time to write an explanation I realised that if you can not understand what a program is then there is no way I can explain the more complex stuff that would come afterwards. I succumbed to my wish to be understood once more when I  know that if your brain cant do it then it just cannot do it nor would the result be you understanding as you wouldnt be able to see the implications or give yourself statistical verification. What I would give to meet someone whose capabilities match or surpass mine...

Predictable pyshics= predictable humans= no free will

3atronach3

Humans are not always predictable... Humans are more than physics.

 

It is truly useless for me to tell you that macro world is so predictable, grab a pyshics basics book and soon you shall see it is the truth. Macroworld is predictable beacuse of decoherence and I do not see how quantum model would help you beacuse some argue it is more deterministic than classic pyshics. Our whole body relies on the fact that laws of nature are so strict- look at the enzymes wich have to have an extremely precise structure.. 

3atronach3

Again, more references to unrelated matter and "helpful" advice to "grab a physics book". Your jusitification is rather poor and shows me a lack of intelligence. Why would the macro world be predictabe because of decoherence? Who would argue that the quantum world is more deterministic than the macro world? Once again, what have enzymes got to do with free will?

 

You say we only have models, and its the truth. That is why those models should be taken lightly, you should try to understand my thought and not criticise the vessel it uses(playing with semantics). It doesnt matter that IQ test can be cheated, it can be done right and it shows that some are more capable and intelligence is the most out of the box thing there is as you cannot learn it. Creativity is a terible concept wich I hate. Creativity tests are ussualy how much jibberish you can say in one minute. 

3atronach3

I wan't aware of any creativity tests! I'm not surprised you dislike it so, because it definitely exists, has much supporting evidence, but is not determined and can not be quantified. 

 

Multiverse is accepted by many prominent people, I think it will soon be a "fact",

3atronach3

How intelligent to use an argument ad-populem in amongst all the other fallacies you've been using. In addition, there are plenty of other competing hypothesis relating to universal origins. Pinning your hopes on any one of them is akin to being religious - as far as evidence is concerned.

 

The macroworld is predictable however I am aware that science is still lacking so I say that free will can be an emergent charachteristic but it probably isnt.

3atronach3

Oh, so you're changing your tune here now. Isn't that a surprise. And isn't that sentence a hypocrisy?

So heres one definiton of a program:

 A set of coded instructions that enables a machine, especially a computer, to perform a desired sequence of operations.

3atronach3

OK - that seems to be a fairly default definition of a program. So does the human brain work sequentially and are instructions coded for it? By the way I have a computer science degree (from a reputable UK university) so can understand what you're trying to say about programming.

Trying for a lot of time to write an explanation I realised that if you can not understand what a program is then there is no way I can explain the more complex stuff that would come afterwards. I succumbed to my wish to be understood once more when I  know that if your brain cant do it then it just cannot do it nor would the result be you understanding as you wouldnt be able to see the implications or give yourself statistical verification. What I would give to meet someone whose capabilities match or surpass mine...

3atronach3

I think your realisation was that it was you that were unable to provide a cogent argument, so you blame me for not understanding you instead. This has been the theme of the whole debate with you. You've already tried this counter-productive "face-saving" disengagement tactic before here, but it did not seem to salve the cognitive dissonance with you then. I'm sure it won't this time, since nothing has changed, aside from your views on free will. - And as you say, you're an intelligent person - I trust intelligent enough to understand your own faulty logic and poor excuses.

What can you give to meet someone whose capabilites match or surpass your own? How would you know when you did? Wouldn't they revolt against your own comparative lack of intelligence?

Why would humans be more than pyshics? Every part of human body obeys pyshics and we can see it easily in every part of human brain except in the brain wich is very complex and he has some emergent charachteristics but it is still material. A leading female neuroscientist whose name I cannot recall stateted that we cannot replicate a human beacuse every atom of his brain would have to be in the exact same spot hinting she beleives its theoreticaly possible.

How can constructs of evolution, such a mindless process, be more than material? Living creatures only differ from everything beacuse they can selfreproduce and are more complex. We are still constructed from ordinary material and its hihgly unlikely that uters puts a soul into the baby...

Looking at humans from evolutinary standpoint there is only one way to define brain. Our world is not magical, it is realistic and almost everything is explainable by its structure and compostion.

Brain has to be very usefull to get away wich huge energy consumption. So what is his use without resorting to magic/god explanations? Brain is a mind generating organ. Since mind is generated by brain they are conected. Try and damage a brain and well see what happens to the mind/*soul*. What else could brain be than a structure wich enforces highly sophisticated routines to the information he gets and by doing so creating a usefull behaviour wich is the reason it was picked by natural selection... That is the sole reason for the existence of feelings, logic, memory they are all usefull to a selfreproductive system... 

My logic has been proven for a milion times, and dissproven a lot also. This is why I think before I say beacuse I know logic is unperfect... Usualy people dont have this much problem understanding what im saying since they show much higher knowledge of pyshics/chemistry/biology but they dont like it beacuse its so depressing...If you dont understand how free will is immposible in a deterministic world then your logic is really :)

To meeting someone who is even more capable I can give him admiration and maybe give him some opinions beacuse my thought probably wouldnt be completely usseless. I would know beacuse there would not be any logical holes in his thinking. I have enough logic that it can send me on the right path exploring(path of demistification) it is only annoying when people think that half of the world is magical, so I think they would be pleased to meet someone at least similar to them and on the same path.

Its not like im trying to insult you but we are material beings and we can often be quantified, even our brain. If theres no more ATP or arc protein you just cant learn anymore and its a pyshical limitation just as it would be if you had no more ATP in your legs...

Why would humans be more than pyshics? Every part of human body obeys pyshics and we can see it easily in every part of human brain except in the brain wich is very complex and he has some emergent charachteristics but it is still material. A leading female neuroscientist whose name I cannot recall stateted that we cannot replicate a human beacuse every atom of his brain would have to be in the exact same spot hinting she beleives its theoreticaly possible.

3atronach3

Humans are more than physics since physics does not resolve the paradigm of humanity in accounting for human discovery, invention and creation. You say a neuroscientist said it is not possible to create the human mind and from that you infer that we can. That is the most dubious sort of twisted logic.

 

How can constructs of evolution, such a mindless process, be more than material? Living creatures only differ from everything beacuse they can selfreproduce and are more complex. We are still constructed from ordinary material and its hihgly unlikely that uters puts a soul into the baby...

Looking at humans from evolutinary standpoint there is only one way to define brain. Our world is not magical, it is realistic and almost everything is explainable by its structure and compostion.

3atronach3

Humans can be viewed from more than a simple evolutionary perspective, which, like physics does not account for the dynamics of the human mind and the discoveries and creations that we have already achieved. It can not predict what we will go on to discover, create and achieve.

I'm not talking about anything ethereal, but tangible, evidence based human achievement. That you don't consider this shows a flaw in your understanding of human psychology. 

 

Brain has to be very usefull to get away wich huge energy consumption. So what is his use without resorting to magic/god explanations? Brain is a mind generating organ. Since mind is generated by brain they are conected. Try and damage a brain and well see what happens to the mind/*soul*. What else could brain be than a structure wich enforces highly sophisticated routines to the information he gets and by doing so creating a usefull behaviour wich is the reason it was picked by natural selection... That is the sole reason for the existence of feelings, logic, memory they are all usefull to a selfreproductive system... 

3atronach3

There is no need to resort to God or magic for me. I think you confuse what you don't understand with what is supernatural. Even lauded religious apologists like Thomas Aquinas asserted that miracles could simply be gaps in our understanding. 

 

My logic has been proven for a milion times, and dissproven a lot also. This is why I think before I say beacuse I know logic is unperfect... Usualy people dont have this much problem understanding what im saying since they show much higher knowledge of pyshics/chemistry/biology but they dont like it beacuse its so depressing...If you dont understand how free will is immposible in a deterministic world then your logic is really :)

3atronach3

For your logic to be proven and disproven sounds suspect at least and should lead you to an agnostic view towards it. Deductive logic can only lead to singular conclusions, whereas inductive logic - or inference - can lead to a multitude of competing results that can not be deduced. You only said yourself in your last post that it might be possible to have free will. In the case of free will, the world would not be entirely deterministic and I think I have shown that it isn't.

You might ignore some of what I say, but that does not make it unsaid. You have not shown me any concepts in physics/chemistry and biology that I don't understand. The only thing you've said that depresses me is your resort to your favourite red herring of intelligence. This makes me believe that it is a cover for your rigidity of thinking. You also contradict yourself in earlier saying that no-one understands you, but now you say they do, but it depresses them.

 

To meeting someone who is even more capable I can give him admiration and maybe give him some opinions beacuse my thought probably wouldnt be completely usseless. I would know beacuse there would not be any logical holes in his thinking. I have enough logic that it can send me on the right path exploring(path of demistification) it is only annoying when people think that half of the world is magical, so I think they would be pleased to meet someone at least similar to them and on the same path.

Its not like im trying to insult you but we are material beings and we can often be quantified, even our brain. If theres no more ATP or arc protein you just cant learn anymore and its a pyshical limitation just as it would be if you had no more ATP in your legs...

3atronach3

Why would your opinions matter to them and why would they want your admiration? How would that enhance or benefit them? Is it that you want to be admired yourself? Is that it? 

You simply don't understand things yourself if you think I believe in magic. I think it is funny that you blame others for not understanding you when you show clearly that you don't understand them. The irony only deepens with your fixation on your own superior intelligence! Albert Einstein said: "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination".

The thing I've learned as I've learned more is that there is always much more to learn. If you think you know enough then you know nothing. TAs Confucius wrote: "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." The tactics you use against others with (you say) lesser intelligence potentially could be used against you by someone with greater intelligence (if your own intelligence is a guide to what intellegince is). But intelligence does not work like that and intelligent people don't use it to try and make them seem more intellectual, since it has exactly the opposite effect - as you repeatedly demonstrate here.

Oh and he would be a master in mathemathics.3atronach3

Do you think prowess in mathematics is the sole factor determining intelligence?

Please stop triple posting - it is not particularly intelligent and easily avoidable.

How to avoid triple posting? I thought I deleted them.

Understanding mathematics is an eliminating factor, one who cannot use it cannot achieve understanding of some things.

Who doesnt lke to be admired, however that is not the goal I just want to talk to someone who shares my thoughts. Every human likes that...

Why is, in your opinion, human brain an exception in the universe and not simply a highly sophisticated machine?

Oh and the neurologist said wed have to put everything in place and thats that so she belives that brain is nothing else than a piece of matter. It doesnt matter if its doable...

How to avoid triple posting? I thought I deleted them.

3atronach3

No, I had to do that. It is simple enough to check your post is up (in a new browser tab) before attempting to re-post it. Those "BONK" errors are one reason why these forums are being replaced. Oddly enough, the new technology being implemented still has a tendency to create double posts from single submits, if the Giantbomb forums are anything to go by!

Understanding mathematics is an eliminating factor, one who cannot use it cannot achieve understanding of some things.

3atronach3

Sure, but it is no panacea or true indicator of intelligence. Intelligence can take many other forms too. Mathematics is fairly procedural and has limited creativity in and of itself. But if used as a means to an end, for the purposes of discovery, then imagination and creativity takes a more profound importance when using maths.

Who doesnt lke to be admired, however that is not the goal I just want to talk to someone who shares my thoughts. Every human likes that...

3atronach3

Not me. I prefer to admire achievement over some contentious self-description.

Talking to people who share your thoughts is also desirable and comforting to many, although I think all the furious agreement would get boring rather quickly. Unquestioning agreement seems more appropriate for one ruled by the dogma of faith than for a free-thinker.

Why is, in your opinion, human brain an exception in the universe and not simply a highly sophisticated machine?

3atronach3

For the same reasons that make humans unique in the universe as we know it. I think it is our (evolved) limited free will and creative thinking will that enables us to discover and create. Why do you think humans are unique amongst evolved species? Why do we urge to explore, discover and create, rather than efficiently just simply survive?

 

Oh and the neurologist said wed have to put everything in place and thats that so she belives that brain is nothing else than a piece of matter. It doesnt matter if its doable...

3atronach3

If it doesn't matter, then why say it can be done (when she said it couldn't - according to you)? Of course you can look at humans as purely physical entities, but then it gets impossible to describe consciousness and being human in those terms.

Are we talking about the christian God?

Cause if so, most christians would say that God IS whatever is good. Of course then they also usually say that God is in everything which is kinda vague and raises some questions about the first claim.