 |
|
|
|
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 - 09:59 am  I'm sure everyone is vaguely familiar with the four "noble" truths of Buddhism. Look them up for more information. One day, I had heard them expressed in a manner that struck me: 1. All is sorrow. 2. All sorrow is caused by desire. 3. End sorrow by ending desire. 4. End desire by following the noble eightfold path. Or: 1. A is B 2. All B is caused by C. 3. End B by ending C. 4. End C by following D. Where: A = All B = Sorrow C = Desire D = Eightfold Path In reverse: 4. By following D, C is ended. 2,3. When C ends, B ends. 1. When C ends, A ends. Therefore: By following D, A ends. A represents "all"... everything: life, death, pleasure, pain, etc. Reading some explications of these "noble" truths, I see this logic holding up. By following Buddhism, you oppose life. Anyone want to defend Buddhism?
| |
| Wednesday, June 2, 2010 - 01:59 pm If A = B, And C => B, Then C => A. It is obvious that the source of "all", as you put it, is not desire. Death is not a result of desire - we more than often enough desire not to die. From here, we apply the theorem "you can't get true conclusions from false premises", to say that Buddhism does not oppose life - or that you haven't proven otherwise, to be exact. If you want it to be true, you will have to define A differently. And it appears to me, that for any definition of A that suits this, the conclusion Buddhism opposes life will be invalid.
| |
| Wednesday, June 2, 2010 - 04:26 pm Yes, thank you. "A = All" is problematic. What is A? A = That which leads to suffering through desire. Accordingly, the first noble truth is explained as: "This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering." A = "the five aggregates subject to clinging" = Skandha If life can be defined as something that is independent of form, matter, sensation, feeling, perception, conception, apperception, cognition, discrimination, mental formations, impulses, volition, compositional factors, consciousness, or discernment, then Buddhism is not opposed to life. My assertion is that it cannot.
| |
| Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 12:40 am Interesting. I'm now noticing a possible mistake in my formulation. #2 is not written as "C => B". That is read as desire implies sorrow. The text states "all sorrow is born from desire", which to be more precise, means a subset of C, possibly even equal to C, implies sorrow. In the case that is not equal, it might mean that there is some desire that does not harbor sorrow. That is not, however, the impression I'm getting from the whole that is all of the Four Noble Truths. My first inclination when reading the explanation given for "all" was to expand it to "life is suffering". However, that would not satisfy the above condition. Skandha does satisfy the condition. By looking at the whole, I draw that if Life is possible without skandha, Life is possible without sorrow. I gather you believe that this life without skandha isn't a life worth living, or even not a life at all. That is a matter of opinion, which extends the discussion to the realm of non-classical logic. I do have to say that this thought of rejection of the material world, or the affection for it is echoed several times throughout the ages, in several places and in religions - it's their cornerstone of sorts - philosophies and styles of life. This suggests there is some degree of truth to it. Of all of these, it seems only nihilism argues that life isn't worth it. And I take the initial stages of the Franciscan Order to be the most vivid example the West has when it comes to the rejection of the material. Curiously enough, I was thinking about the second noble truth last night, after reading this quote: "I have the grace of providence to be poor."
| |
| Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 02:05 pm "This beggar was a chosen object of divine mercy. He was both poor and helpless, but there were many others in that condition around the temple. Luke tells us that this man was "a certain man". God had chosen him and was determined to be gracious to him (II Thess. 2:13-14). Providence had made him poor and helpless and put him in the place where grace would be found." DESIRELESS
| |
| Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 08:18 pm The issue with the rejection of the material world for another spiritual world (doesn't matter what kind) lies in the fact that you are rejecting the certain for the uncertain. The spiritual world is uncertain to exist, uncertain as to what it exactly is, and uncertain as to whether or not it is a better world. This would be equivalent to betting on a team that wasn't signed up for the tournament in hopes not only that they exist, but that they also show up ready to play and are good enough to win the tournament. If there were evidence for this existence of the spiritual world, it could only be accessed through one of the skandha. It must be felt, seen, acknowledged, remembered, etc. to actually be evident to exist (and therefore certain). The ridiculousness of nix's statement is this: The beggar chosen for God's mercy is both poor and helpless. He is chosen for God's grace on this basis over the other beggars because he was "a certain man". What if he were not "a certain man"? What is the measure of "a certain man"? Since he was poor and helpless exactly like the other beggars, this aspect of him is the specific thing that sets him apart from the other beggars. Surrounded by other beggars in the same position, there is no specific criteria for God's choice beyond the 'providence' of being the one chosen. This is not hopeful. In order to receive God's mercy, one must put themselves in a position of poorness and helplessness and expect to be lucky enough to be chosen for mercy. However, if one did not put oneself in this state of poorness and helplessness, would one require God's mercy?
| |
| Friday, June 4, 2010 - 01:02 am Philosophers: Proving *nothing* more intelligently than the rest of us since 1000 BC.
| |
| Friday, June 4, 2010 - 07:21 am But what is nothing? If nothing can be defined, does that make it something? If something is nothing, how come nothing cannot be something? We all know that the only thing missing in Philosophy is LOLcats. Economics, now, that's the one true science! The rest is just pictures and fancy talk. ;0
| |
| Friday, June 4, 2010 - 03:31 pm LOL
| |
| Friday, June 4, 2010 - 04:26 pm Scarlet. Maybe the other Beggars were in a position of begging because they had been bad? Maybe they were there looking for help and forgivness? Maybe this "certain man" was in a position of begging because he was a good man? Maybe he was there to help and offer forgivness? LOL Quote: 'However, if one did not put oneself in this state of poorness and helplessness, would one require God's mercy?' LAOF I guess it all depends on what definitions you use for poorness and helplessness.
| |
| Saturday, June 5, 2010 - 03:59 am Hmm, maybe... maybe... maybe... is there anything certain about this situation? Consider the saying: "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime." This is what I'm seeing here. How can a man who cannot fish teach others to fish (helplessness)? How can a man who is poor even give others a fish (poorness)? Of what use is this poor, helpless man to other poor, helpless men?
| |
| Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 12:07 am When I read nix's quote I assumed it was from the Bible, but upon researching I realize it is not, it is someone else's commentary. Others may have assumed as I did, so just for some clarity: Act 3 contains the actual verses referred to.
Peter continues on preaching. For reference, (Paul's letter) II Thessalonians 2:13-14 is:
Personally, I don't see what the 2nd has to do with the first. And the beggar in question seems to me to have been chosen specifically for Peter to get people's attention, so they would listen to his preaching. Just trying to shed a little light on the previous few comments, which seem to be assuming things that were not actually in the original text.
| |
| Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 12:34 am dAM jO jo. Just come in from the pub thinking I knew what I was gonna say to Scarlet and now my head feels like it needs a cuppa tea. Ill be back when the kettles boiled. Your right. I have no idea where that quote came from. But the more I think about it the more it holds water. To be poor and helpless means you are only reliant on you and who you are.
| |
| Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 03:30 am Then it appears the beggar is chosen for two reasons: 1. He cannot walk. 2. His walking will lend credence to Peter's teaching (or God's word). If his walking were not required to lend credence to Peter's teaching, would not this mean that he would remain lame? Or if he were capable of walking, wouldn't this mean that he would have been overlooked for God's miracle? There is still no criteria that truly sets this man apart from other lame men save that of convenience (he was in the right place at the right time for God's purposes).
If you are self-reliant, then you are poor and helpless? I don't believe this statement can possibly be true or at least in the manner you appear to intend it. 1. What if you are competent and capable? 2. What if you are strong and healthy? 3. What if you participate in teamwork? Consider this: Relying on God means two things regarding poorness and helplessness. First, you rely on God's will rather than your own will to determine whether or not you are poor. God might decide to bless you, but ultimately, you have no control over this. This willfully takes the control out of your hands and into God's. Lack of control or willpower in determining your future IS helplessness. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things an individual can due to improve their life. Hard work, critical thinking, and dedication will yield far more apparent and desirable consequences than faith. Which is more beneficial to getting a raise or even a job, prayer or competence? Second, I assume you see TRUE poorness as spiritual poorness. However, as I've pointed out earlier. The spiritual world is not even guaranteed to exist. One is bound to believe in it on faith alone. Maybe those people that hear God's voice really hear God or those people that catch glimpses of hell really see hell, but these are personal experiences and personal interpretations of those experiences. The only certain world is this material one in which you live. The world of measurable quantities and qualities. The world of sight, touch, hearing, taste, and smell. Denial of this very certainly real world and existence in hopes for a better one is a gamble. When you trust in God, who are you actually trusting? Would you trust anyone without have met or seen them? Whose personality has been passed down to you based on the reports of those long since dead that may not have been healthily cautious or skeptical of the voices in their heads or were not careful in their interpretations of natural phenomena? Anything that would require me to suspend basic reality and my power to determine my future based on mere belief that things are not as they appear. I require proof that this spiritual world exists, that it is better than the material world, and that whoever or whatever I'm placing faith into can be trusted. Without this, I would be following the greatest evil to ever exist... nothing. Speaking of nothing: Even if nothing can be defined or named, that doesn't make it something. This is because "nothing" is merely a metaphor for 0, for the absence of something. A placeholder and expression of an abstract concept. The concept itself is what it is... absolutely nothing, the lack of anything. However, there is no way to describe it (or anything really) except through metaphor. Every word, definition, explanation, natural law is a representation and metaphor of the thing that is what it is. A = A, but we can choose to express A in order to better represent and communicate A to others.
| |
| Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 05:36 am Very well put Scarlet. Very well indeed. As you put it, is as it is. Faith is to believe, and biblically speaking, faith in itself is proof of the existence of God and at the same time, to believe in God, one needs faith. Beyond that, there is no way to prove him, except by a miracle, something that happens that defies the laws of physics and our present reality (enter the lame man). But isn't it something, biblically, as faith is a "gift" of God, he gives it as he pleases, and only through faith can one find him. "As it is written", "all men have not faith" (2 Thesslonians 3:2), it would seem that God holds all the cards? I would like to give my input in somethings though. What if... One were to believe in the God, and in his will, therefore believing that he controls one's destiny. Nevertheless, at the same time, one works hard, is driven, yet prays? Could it be that one determines that the will of God is for one to work hard, and be driven? Biblically, it is said for men to work hard in all they do as though they worked for God. How then can it be determined which of them caused a man's successes? Could it be that he worked hard, or that God willed it? Or even that God willed for him to work hard and gain success (meaning both)? The 3rd person may say he had success from what he did, while he may say it was by the will of God. Who can judge it? One can call this man a fool, while he can call one blind. speaking of nothing Isn't it quite interesting that this very idea of "nothing" is what has our "science" tripped up in the first place? Beyond our glorious pictures, and wonderful microwaves, we get down to the basic question of where did it all begin? Some say Billions of years it all came from nothing...but then again, how can nothing (no-thing) explode (referring to the most popular and widely accepted belief)? Others seeing how illogical it is for nothing to explode create other theories. Multiple Universes that create other universes, but still leave that massive question...where did the first universe that created the rest come from? The same goes for multiple dimensions. And from this single question we have multitudes of theories and no answer. Even todays "nothing" causes even greater questions among the stars. One must ask himself, how is it that after all this time (assuming the big bang is true) and after there is no more explosive energy, the Universe is speeding up it's spread across space. Gravity should, by definition, retain everything together, and yet, clusters of galaxies are moving further away from each other, faster. Enter even more of our theories to try to explain this, the most popular of which is the "dark matter/energy" theory. The theory goes that "dark matter" makes up 99% of the known universe, and this energy is stronger than gravity, and it pushes the galaxies. Problems? Well, as it is stated, we can not see it, cannot hear it, cannot measure it, and do not know what it is made of, LOL. How then is it even there, if it even is??? So we call nothing something and booya! the problem is solved, rofl. Those faithful might say what that lame man might say, "1Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.2Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:" (psalm 104:2). How interesting it is that nothing (no-thing) causes us sooo many problems, considering its nothing! "25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence." (1 Corinthians 1)
| |
| Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 07:32 am I don't think there's any great lesson about the beggar in that story--nothing against him, I'm sure he was a nice guy, but in the story he's just a prop. So, for example, "If his walking were not required to lend credence to Peter's teaching, would not this mean that he would remain lame?" Yes, it would, and he would. And then "yes," and "yes," to Scarlet's next 2 questions...but I don't think this means anything significant. Anyway, "Hard work, critical thinking, and dedication will yield far more apparent and desirable consequences than faith." Perhaps, but I don't see that they are exclusive. I would prefer hard work, critical thinking, dedication, and faith. "The spiritual world is not even guaranteed to exist." Guaranteed is a strong word. There is no guarantee that the material world exists. Tomorrow, it all could go POOF, and you would look in vain for your guarantee. Descartes put it very well--all we know about the physical world is what comes through our senses, but we don't know whether we can trust our senses. They could be faulty, or we could be deceived by some evil being. I don't know whether DC said this, but it seems to me you have to take a step of faith to truly believe that the world you sense is as it seems. Furthermore, science tells us that it's NOT all as it seems. Something as simple as a solid table...it's really mostly empty space. Its solidity when you tap your fingers on it is an effect, caused by the repulsion of the electrons on the surface of your skin from the electrons on the surface of the table. The earth seems flat, but really it's round. The sun seems to go around the earth, but really the earth orbits the sun (really really they both move). The passage of time itself may be a psychological effect--hardcore physics doesn't have any room for it. What I'm saying is that the material world is less real than it seems, and depending on how you define the spiritual world, it's more real than it seems. Start with thoughts, perceptions, our mental world. I have one, and I believe it's real, but there's no room for it in the material view of reality. You may have a mental world too, though I don't know that for sure, and I would have to take it on faith. It may be caused by the material world, but it's not part of what we normally describe as the material world. What causes people to do what they think is right, even when it means denying pleasure in the material world? I say that's evidence for the existence of a spiritual world. You won't get actual proof, though, of anything, material or spiritual.
| |
Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 09:47 am
If the material world ceases to exist, then I cease to exist. If the spiritual world ceases to exist, then is there any evidence that would show that I cease to exist? Accordingly, my very existence is inextricably and undeniably tied to the existence of the material world. Beyond that, the mental world is included in the material one as thought is demonstrably tied to the brain and has physical manifestation. The brain is the vehicle of thought. The absence of the brain will lead to an apparent lack of thought. The fact that I can be taught abstract concepts that I did not before know or understand is evidence of the reality of the mind. The brain consumes calories when it thinks. There is such thing as brain waves. The transmission of ideas requires sight and hearing. Abstract concepts cannot exist independently of the material world. Can you name one that does? Did you not need your senses to learn it? Do you not need energy or matter to put it into practice? In short, is there any way for an abstract concept to exist without having some manifestation in the material world? The material world does exist, but nonetheless, this does not mean it is not prone to mis-perception or mis-interpretation. Consider the case of a mirage, there are very real principles at work creating the illusion and there is a very real cause for what you are seeing, but your interpretation that the mirage is the real deal would be false. You are deriving two conclusions of the material world of which I am speaking that are erroneous: 1. There is no place for thought, perception, and human error. 2. Pleasure is the measure of success. Just because someone misinterprets a phenomena does not mean that phenomena is uncertain to exist. The table is there. There is no power in the universe that will make the table inexplicably disappear. The keyword is inexplicably. The table's existence is certain even if everyone denies the existence of the table. If you tried running through this table in the belief that it did not exist, you would run into it. The laws of nature may sometimes be erroneously explained, but they ALWAYS function in an 'explainable' manner. All truth is logical. All truth can be explained. All truth can be observed (even if it requires the help of some instrument, like a microscope or voltmeter). There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. As you said, the earth is round. This can be proven. The appearance of flatness is an erroneous conclusion based on incomplete observation. Just because something is not as it seems does not mean it is less real; it means that your understanding is less correct.
Descartes said this, but in fact, you are saying that I need to place faith in the senses to be guaranteed of their existence. It isn't that simple... consider the assumptions in the alternatives of this proposition: 1. The material world my senses perceive exists. 2. The material world my senses perceive does not exist. There is an being that is capable of deceiving my senses. This being also desires to deceive my senses. Which view makes more assumptions?
First, this is circular reasoning. The spiritual world exists because people take right action over pleasure, but don't people take right action over pleasure because they believe the spiritual world exists? Second, who says pleasure is the highest goal of the material world? Couldn't the person take right action because they wished to maintain an ordered, lawful society? Or because they wished to defend a friend? Or because they wished to make new friends? Or because they wanted to earn a good reputation? Or because they identified with the victim (or issue)? All of these are self-serving. In your hypothetical, taking right action denies pleasure, but could seek to accomplish another goal. If this was taken to the point of self-sacrifice and martyrdom, then it could be argued that it is not self-serving, but the fact that someone would martyr themselves is evidence of belief in a spiritual world rather than evidence of the existence of a spiritual world. If you think that I believe that pleasure is the measure of success and the goal of the material world, you'd be quite wrong. On the contrary, I live a very ascetic lifestyle. The life of accomplishment and creation is what I aspire for. I cannot do anything EXCEPT what I think is right without not only feeling guilty, but betraying and harming my existence. Anyone can see that right action and self-serving action are synonymous. If I refuse to aid someone being robbed, how can I reasonably expect someone else to do the same? If I can prevent the robbery, do I not condone this robbery by taking no action. When I condone this robbery, do I not condone all robbery? When I take no action, do I not encourage others to do the same? However, if I am incapable, for certain, of preventing the robbery, what use is it to attempt to? Do I not add to the robbers pockets by presenting another target of robbery? In effect, do I not support the robber by taking ill-considered action? The individual's action translates to society's scale because society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. It does not make sense to do anything other than the right thing. Logic explains what is possible and impossible. Science explains what is physically possible by interpreting and explaining natural phenomena. However, science is an explanation of natural law. Therefore, scientific explanations can be mistaken, but nature ALWAYS follows her own laws. There may be some undiscovered principle, but it still exists whether or not it has yet been discovered through science. In the face of MOUNTAINS (quite literally) of evidence in favor of the material world, it amazes me that people could believe that it cannot be proven. On a side note, I'm saying that the spiritual world merely cannot be proven to exist. I'm taking the position that the material world is far more valuable than any spiritual world. Back to my original point, give me ONE, just one, aspect of "life" that can be proven to be independent of the material world, and you can prove that Buddhism is not opposed to life. Why? If I sacrifice my well-being to the benefit of nobody else's well-being, but instead for a spiritual cause, I'm acting to a net loss of material existence. If I'm acting at a net loss of material existence and no aspect of "life" can be demonstrated to spiritually exist, then I'm acting at a net loss of life.
| |
| Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 10:11 am Almost forgot about hard work and prayer. My point is merely that the deciding factor in success is hard work. Even if God exists, God's will could only be at most a contributing factor. Isn't the saying: "God helps them that help themselves." or something like that. If somebody wants to believe that God is the cause of their success, that's fine. Their entitled to it, but were it not for their own hard work and dedication, I strongly doubt they would have achieved any success whatsoever. I'm sure this can be demonstrated merely by looking at the common denominator of success: 1. What percentage of successful people worked hard? 2. What percentage of successful people prayed? 3. What percentage of unsuccessful people worked hard? 4. What percentage of unsuccessful people prayed? While I'm not going to make up statistics, I'm sure that hard work corresponds more closely to success than prayer. I will point out: When you make decisions and take action, believing that God is responsible for your success is kind of like believing God is responsible for your failure. Are you not solely responsible for the consequences of your actions? I can imagine some refutation of hard work coming... so I'll include networking, brown-nosing, and the like. Technically, this is included in hard work if hard work is defined as "specific and considered action toward success". Where you take the action, you are the cause of the consequences. EDIT: One more thought. Is it not better when I make myself materially useful to others? In this way, I benefit others, but when they benefit, I also benefit. When I benefit, they also benefit. In short, shouldn't I make my own benefit to the benefit of others... so that everyone can benefit? Why should I need to sacrifice myself for the benefit of others? Wouldn't this make my loss to the benefit of others? If my loss is to the benefit of others, why wouldn't they seek out my loss?
| |
| Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 03:12 pm Short response now: You're stacking the deck, if you only accept physical evidence as evidence, and then state that the evidence only supports a material world. You're also stacking the deck if you assume that anything we do is by definition self-serving, then claim that such is evidence that there is no spiritual existence. Proof that nature ALWAYS follows her own laws? None, in fact. Maybe it does, but there's no proof. And depending on how you define laws, there's plenty of evidence against it, in quantum physics.
| |
| Sunday, June 6, 2010 - 11:40 pm I'm not stacking the deck, and it would appear as though you are making several unwarranted assumptions. Perhaps this is because of my word choice. 1. State an example of non-physical evidence. If non-physical evidence exists, then a non-physical world can exist. If, however, I cannot access non-physical evidence, then I do not have non-physical senses. If I do not have non-physical senses, I can't know of or participate in a non-physical world. If I can never know of or participate in a non-physical world, then it's existence is irrelevant to my own. 2. I'm not assuming anything we do is self-serving, and I'm certainly not using this as evidence. I clearly stated a counter-example. My evidence was the fact that you were using circular reasoning. Rather, my point was how the right thing does not need to be opposed to the personal good. 3. Nature ALWAYS follows her own laws. This is INHERENTLY true. There cannot be any contradiction. It is, quite literally, impossible. A = A. Nature is nature. Quantum Physics =/= Nature. Rather, it is a scientific observation and explanation of natural phenomena. The natural phenomena functions according to natural law. Natural law is the way nature works. However nature happens to work, that is natural law. When there is a discrepancy between Science and Nature, the truth always lies in nature. This is why all science is theory. It is the most probable explanation of observable phenomena. Quantum Physics reveals merely that there is more to nature than anyone had previously assumed, it does NOT disprove anything.
| |
| Monday, June 7, 2010 - 03:34 am Ok, I'm arguing that the non-material world exists as much as the material, physical world exists. You ask for proof that it exists, yet you provide no proof that the material world exists, you just take it as a given. Where's your proof?
| |
| Monday, June 7, 2010 - 03:50 am And I'm saying that I have direct evidence of something that's not part of the material, physical world...my perceptions and consciousness. All you argued on that point was that perceptions and consciousness are connected to the material, physical world. Granted. The "so-called material, physical world," that is, until you prove its existence. Just because it is connected to the so-called material, physical world (SCMPW) doesn't mean it is part of the SCMPW. Any more than the SCMPW is a part of the non-SCMPW, just because it is connected to it. Though that is more plausible.
| |
| Monday, June 7, 2010 - 04:30 am And finally I just have to argue this highly speculative "Nature always follows her own laws" business. You seem to be just defining whatever happens as nature following its own laws. There's no content to that statement; it's a useless tautology. A rock can fall up on Tuesdays, and sideways on Wednesdays, and you'd say that it's just following the laws of nature. A man could turn water into wine, and you'd says it's just nature following its laws. Usually when scientists say nature follows laws they are excluding most imaginable occurrences as 'against the laws' and thus not possible. Laws of nature tend to be independent of time, and independent of location, and independent of velocity. Furthermore, scientists say that the laws of nature tend to be simple, and that they tend to be expressible mathematically. The fact that we can make these generalizations has made a profound impression on some very reflective scientists. If you accept such focusing of what laws of nature are, you gain understanding, but you lose provability. It's been well worth it for science to take this route, but we can't assume that we've also gotten back provability along the way.
| |
| Tuesday, June 8, 2010 - 05:00 am Rocks falling sideways? I can't follow the laws of nature if it doesn't happen. The point of "Nature always follows her own laws" is two-fold: 1. Nature functions in a predictable manner. 2. Science can be wrong, but nature is what it is. Perception is impossible without the material world because perception requires: 1. Something to do the perceiving. (The senses) 2. Something to be perceived. (The material world) 3. Something to interpret the perception. (The mind) Perception requires these things to occur. Perception occurs. If perception requires these things to occur and perception occurs, then these things exist. Now, the question of the mind's existence is whether or not it is part of the material world. You say that I merely pointed out that it was connected... but this is a misinterpretation of what I was trying to point out. Rather, the mind DEPENDS on the material world to exist. If the material world ceases to exist, then the mind ceases to exist. This is probable for several reasons: 1. When you think, your mind uses calories. 2. When you don't think as much, your mind uses less calories. 3. If you did not think, your mind would use zero calories. 4. Calories are energy and part of the material world. 5. If thinking was immaterial, then it would not require calorie usage to occur. Finally, proof of the material world: My computer. Your computer. My chair. This table. That delicious sandwich I ate earlier. The mailman. Lightbulbs. Cheese. My wrecked 1993 Toyota Tercel. (R.I.P.) The other guy's Rav4. The door I stubbed my toe on last night. Bagels. Coffee. Keys. Cigarettes. Etc. Why should I doubt that which I see? If I can't even bring myself to believe that which I see, why should I believe that which I don't see?
| |
| Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - 05:02 am Laws of Nature Scarlet, when you say "Nature functions in a predictable manner," do you mean sometimes, or always? Because we can only predict it sometimes. I don't think you're going to get around the fact that you're just guessing or taking it on faith if you think it always functions in a predictable manner. Perception Senses don't perceive. Minds perceive. I'll agree that the thing to be perceived must be part of the material world. But I don't automatically agree that perception occurs. Maybe our "perceptions" are really hallucinations or dreams. Mind's existence Okay, you're saying very clearly that the mind depends on the material world for its existence. So you're cleverly implying (intentionally or not) that the material world must be at least as real as the non-material world of the mind. I could fall back on the extreme non-material position and say that the appearance of brains and minds depending on them is just part of the dream/hallucination. That's getting to sound a bit far-fetched but it still is consistent with the name of this thread. If you're trying to say that the mind is part of the material world because it depends on the material world, though, then I disagree. This particular statement, for example, I don't buy: It's not like the energy disappears--it ends up as heat. All you're saying is that gears turn, and we think. A) That doesn't mean that thinking is just more of a different kind of gear-turning. B) Maybe it's the thinking that causes the gears to turn, rather than vice versa. Or maybe they're both caused by some other thing. Proof of the material world "The door I stubbed my toe on last night." LOL, good one! But maybe it's all an illusion, samsara. It's all protons and neutrons and electrons after all, and it's really mostly empty space. And those so-called "particles" are really just waves of probability. It's not real, it just seems that way. Cigarettes though, hmm, yeah, another good point I'll have to think about. Hey, maybe the philosopher will join in. oh, last point--isn't the thing that's doing the seeing (the mind) more real than the things it is (allegedly) seeing?? I mean, I'll believe that I exist way before I'll believe that you or anyone else exists. And it's only fair that you reason it the same way.
| |
| Friday, June 11, 2010 - 05:16 am Laws of Nature I mean always. I'm saying that: If we always knew all the variables in nature, then we could always accurately predict it. However, we don't always know every variable or every principle. Let me explain it like this: One person does not know how precisely how another thinks and can be surprised by another person's actions. * Science can be surprised by events in nature. However, if the first person knew every single value, principle, experience, thought, environmental factor, etc. and how these played into all the thoughts, words and deeds of the second (had omniscience in other words), this person would be able to accurately predict the person's actions and wouldn't be surprised. * Science predicts nature by knowing what it is. The other person does not have or need to have omniscience of themselves in order to make the decision; they simply make their decision on the basis of whatever they use to make it. If they like flipping coins, then this is how the decision is made. If they like following simple rules, then this is how the decision is made. If they like to follow complex, legalistic rules, then this is how the decision is made. The only thing that they cannot do is NOT make a decision they didn't make. If this person wanted to intentionally contradict themselves, this could be predicted. * Nature doesn't work in a way it can't work. This is how nature is predictable. Applying this: B + C = A B + C + D = A + D If D =/= 0, then A + D =/= A. If D = 0, then A + D = A. Imagine B + C as the circumstance dictating that rocks fall down, and A as the situation of rocks falling down. If B and C are the only variables, then B + C will always result in A. The presence of additional variables that effect the final result will effect the final result. Therefore: If all variables required for rocks falling down are present (X), rocks will fall down. If all known variables are present (X-D) and some unknown variable is not present (D), rocks will not fall down. This is the difference between that which is known to be required (Science) and that which is required (Nature). "Predictable" doesn't require accurate predictions, but does require that nature follow the laws of logic. Repeated: An event occurs because everything (known and unknown) that causes it to occur is present. If everything that causes an event to occur is present, then the event must happen. X = A If everything that causes an event to occur is present and the event does not happen, then the event is illogical. X = not-A If X = A and X = not-A, then A = not-A. More to come! If you haven't figured out, I'm only an amateur so I'm still mostly working out this stuff! I'll put this down so I don't forget: If there is the presence of evidence for the material world, then that evidence may be true or false. If true, the material world does exist. If false, the material world may or may not exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, so the spiritual (by spiritual I mean immaterial) world may or may not not exist. As there is no evidence that can be true or false, there is no "if" that allows the spiritual world the possibility of being certain. The mental world is certain to exist. However, the nature of this world, whether material or spiritual, depends on the above. Therefore, there are five possibilities: The material world certainly exists. The material world possibly exists. The material world possibly does not exist. The spiritual world possibly exists. The spiritual world possibly does not exist. Note that only one has indication that it CAN be certain which is dependent upon accurate perception.
| |
| Friday, July 2, 2010 - 05:09 am "2. Science can be wrong, but nature is what it is." Agreed. "1. Nature functions in a predictable manner." Disagreed. There are three arguments, that I know of, against this. A) Just because we have figured out a lot of regularities that we call laws, doesn't mean, logically, that everything that happens in nature follows regular "laws". You can't prove it, you have to take it as a postulate. You can legitimately say that you have to take it on faith.
B) Assume that nature does always follow strict laws. Then it might seem to follow that "if we always knew all the variables in nature, then we could always accurately predict it." The Laplacian view. However, at least some of the laws of nature are so sensitive to the initial conditions that in practice this is often just words. There's no way we'll ever get the precision needed to accurately predict the weather a year from now. In that sense, there is a large-scale randomness to nature...identical initial conditions (as far as we can tell) but different results. This is chaos theory, btw. C) You might say that in principle we could always accurately predict things that happen in nature, (assuming there are laws for everything), even if in practice we don't know all the laws and we can't measure things with infinite precision. And you did say that. But quantum physics tells us that on the smallest level there is randomness. The same exact initial conditions can produce different results. The laws are probabilistic, not deterministic. It's not due to our lack of knowledge; experiments show that it's due to how nature actually operates.
| |
| Friday, July 2, 2010 - 06:03 pm Quantum theory tells us that there is uncertainty, not randomness.
| |
| Saturday, July 3, 2010 - 04:53 pm Uncertainty, yes, but also randomness. A radioactive nucleus wait for millions of years, doing nothing, then one morning decides it's a good time to decay. Why at that moment, and not at some other moment? Randomness. We couldn't predict the moment, regardless of issues of uncertainty.
| |
| Saturday, July 3, 2010 - 09:48 pm A) You can prove it though. If the existence of laws could not be proven or disproven, then there would be no need to look further. This quote is being misinterpreted. If I told you that I believe that you'll find a good car for under $10K because I've seen listings for cars under $10K that have been inspected and have personally purchased a car under $10K and it's working fine, is this faith? This is a rational assumption based upon evidence. Is it conceivable that you will not find a good car under $10K? Yes. Can I be proven correct? Yes. Can I be proven wrong? Yes. If I said that you can find a good car under $10K if you pray to god, could I prove that there was any correlation between the quality of the car and the prayer? No. If the car was good, could I prove that God answered my prayer or if the prayer functioned as a placebo improving my outlook in a manner that lead to me finding a good car or if it was dumb luck? THIS is faith. Believing something that cannot be proven, not making assumptions based upon evidence that can be proven or disproven. You are attempting to categorize two separate phenomena under the same word. Calling a duck a rabbit doesn't turn the duck into a rabbit. B) Chaos theory would point toward the opposite of randomness (if that opposite is merely non-randomness). It isn't identical initial conditions that lead to different results, but rather, tiny differences in initial conditions. This isn't randomness in the slightest and would further the idea that nothing is random. It would appear that you're ignoring that there is IMMENSE importance in very subtle differences between two very similar things. C) Once again, uncertainty does not equal the same thing as randomness. Probabilistic laws are still laws (see coin-flipping reference in previous post). Randomness implies that there are no laws whatsoever. The only problem with my statement comes when there are no laws whatsoever. Last statement: Source?
| |
| Sunday, July 4, 2010 - 06:02 am You keep saying that you can prove that everything that happens in nature follows regular laws, yet you keep avoiding doing so.
| |
| Monday, July 5, 2010 - 10:43 pm 'Randomness implies that there are no laws whatsoever. The only problem with my statement comes when there are no laws whatsoever.'  The meaning of life is the contradiction. Or should I say the 'logic' of life is a contradiction? The only thing that isn't a contradiction is 'faith'. But you only have 'faith' when you have lost the meaning of life?............. Oh yea........life's a contradiction
| |
| Tuesday, July 6, 2010 - 09:42 am @Jojo Tell me. Do you accept the three rules of logic and the principle of cause and effect? If you do, then you must see that nature could ONLY be predictable. Why should things happen without causes, and why shouldn't cause and effect sequences be self-identical and non-contradictory? If nature is always follow these ideas, it will always be predictable. If nature does not follow them, it will not be predictable. It's this simple. I'm not avoiding anything... I'm attempting to demonstrate that your evidence does not disprove the assumption of predictability, but rather lend themselves to this assumption... if you're ignoring what I'm typing here, why should I bother to continue? If I'm not explaining myself well, point out where my argument is weak rather than make blanket accusations. @nix001 Profundity favors substance. First, if you are stating that the meaning of life is a contradiction... you will need to identify the true meaning of life and point out where it is contradictory. Second, the same applies for 'logic' of life... you will need to identify what you mean by this and point out where it is contradictory... or explain how it is the same thing as the meaning of life. Third, you will need to explain what aspect of faith makes it not a contradiction in relation to everything else. Fourth, you will need to explain how the meaning of life must be lost in order to have faith... or you will need to explain why it is not possible for life to have meaning with faith. Fifth, you will need to explain how contradictions are possibly for things that are true... unless you mean to imply that life itself does not happen.
| |
| Wednesday, July 7, 2010 - 04:32 am Hey, Scarlet, if someone keeps asking the same question, maybe you haven't been responding to it, and maybe it's not so simple. I've been pretty patient this whole time, but I'm losing patience for you accusing me of ignoring and mischaracterizing what you write. Try practicing what you preach. Your proof: I'll accept the three rules of logic, as long as you accept the need for precision in language. You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by the principle of cause and effect. And I'll tell you now that I probably won't agree with it, and that this is the weak point in your argument, so don't just slough it off.
| |
| Wednesday, July 7, 2010 - 06:55 am All effects have a cause. For example, I let go of the napkin (cause). The napkin falls (effect). Something cannot be it's own cause. The napkin does not fall because the napkin fell. The cause must precede the effect. The napkin cannot fall before I let go of it (assuming for sake of argument that my release of the napkin is the sole cause that would lead to the effect). The cause must be related to the effect. The napkin will not fall because the temperature on Mars went up 3 degrees. There are sufficient, contributory, and necessary causes. My release of the napkin will always result in the napkin falling (necessary). The 10 degree rise in temperature in the room may cause the release of the napkin, but another cause (such as the desire to turn up the A/C) may result in the release of the napkin (sufficient). If the absence of desire to turn up the A/C still results in the release of the napkin, this would be a contributory cause because altering this cause does not change the effect. A cause may be probabilistic. My involuntary release of the napkin will become more likely on a windy day, but will not always result in the release of the napkin on a windy day. Cause-and-effect chains may have intermediary cause/effects. The temperature of the room rises. The napkin falls. In between, the desire to reduce the temperature of the room is caused by the increased temperature and, in turn, causes the release of the napkin (which has a sufficient cause in the belief that I need to release the napkin in order to turn up the A/C). I hope I'm not missing anything... anyway, which do you disagree with?
| |
| Wednesday, July 7, 2010 - 06:06 pm I suggest you use your sleeve not a napkin.
| |
Thursday, July 8, 2010 - 11:22 am
That's something of a misinterpretation. True, we cannot predict accurately the time at which any given nucleon will decay. However, nucleons do decay, and in a predictable manner. The half-life - as you will no doubt be aware - of any given unstable nucleus is constant to a very specific degree, give or take an inherent uncertainty in the process. Were the decay process truly random for any nucleon, the values measured for the half-life of the nucleus as a whole would not follow such a pattern. Indeed, taken as a whole, decay of the nucleus is not random at all. It is, however, possible to erroneously interpret the nature of individual nucleons by viewing their decay in isolation, and by not understanding the nature of the uncertainty inherent within the system as a whole.
| |
| Thursday, July 8, 2010 - 04:23 pm Ultimate logic: Reading gains knowledge Knowledge is power Power corrupts Corruption is crime Crime doesn't pay A penny not earned is a penny lost If you read, you'll go broke You have to spend money to make money I spent money but did not make money Therefore, I did not spend money. There are a 1000 planets in the infinite universe that are inhabited. The odds of finding an inhabited planet in the universe is 1000 to infinite, or zero. There are no inhabited planets in the universe. The NRA supports the right to bear arms. Arms can be nuclear arms. The NRA supports private ownership and bearing of nuclear weapons. According to evolution, man evolved from primates. There are still primates. Consequently, evolution is not true. And that is why I never read or gain knowledge through any other means, spend money on everything wether or not it seems profitable, denounce the SETI and Darwinism, own a nuclear weapon, and have joined the Holy Organization of the Almighty Moe.
| |
| Monday, July 12, 2010 - 05:32 am "anyway, which do you disagree with?" First, third, fourth, and sixth statements. I'm not really clear on what you mean in the fifth and seventh statements, so I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree. But that second one, I'm good with that You're not really going where I expected you to go. I'd have figured gravity would be in there someplace, in your napkin examples. Probably the important one is the first one. What do you mean, "all effects have causes"? I'd call that a tautology--true by definition, but no content. Are you saying all events, all actions, everything that happens, has a cause? Or just that effects, i.e. things that have causes, have causes.?
| |
| Monday, July 12, 2010 - 05:53 am @Rita: Sure, the half-life of a large sample is a reliable value that can be precisely measured. And the behavior of an individual nucleon can be described statistically. But I don't see why we can't say it decays at random. As far as I know, it's not as though there's some little roulette wheel hidden in the background that's following strict rules and mechanically determining when it's going to pop.
| |
| Monday, July 12, 2010 - 12:42 pm Surely anything that can be observed to happen or proven to be possible of happening at least once can be assigned a probability of happening, no matter how small a probability, (It can be shown mathematically that a napkin will or has deflected a bullet or a person may walk through a six foot thick concrete wall), hence, (unless this discussion is more about definition of 'random' and 'prediction'), there is no such phenomenon as 'randomness'. I would invite you to provide an example of true randomness. Encarta Concise English Dictionary (Bloomsbury 2001): Random - Without a pattern, done, chosen or occurring without a specific pattern, plan, or connection. Done or chosen infers an intent by some person or intelligence, specific pattern infers a system as defined by our interpretation of 'things' we see happen. So to be random, an event would have to unintended and not obeying our currently understood laws of physics, or, in other words, in a philosophical and abstract realm.
| |
| Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 05:24 am Not sure what you both mean by random. Coin toss, throw of dice...why aren't those random?
| |
| Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 06:39 am I suppose they are not random because given a certain number of times performing the action the results are predictable, plus physics can explain why the dice or coin result it is what it is. It isn't random that the coin landed on heads, it is due to the force at which it was thrown, wind resistance, rigidity of the surface it lands on, the angle it landed at, etc. Haven't been involved in the conversation, just reading and thought that was one I could respond to adequately.
| |
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 08:57 am
I mean everything that happens has a cause. The essence of the fifth statement is that not all causes are equal, as not all contribute equally to an effect. Single factors don't always determine an action. You wouldn't buy every nice suit you saw. The "niceness" of a suit does not solely determine whether or not you buy it. Likewise, you wouldn't buy every suit you could afford. The "affordability" of the suit does not solely determine whether or not you buy a suit. Now, assume you see a VERY nice suit. Then you consider whether you can afford it or not. Niceness + Affordability will have the effect of you buying the suit. Both are necessary. However, you might also consider that you wish to impress someone... this still factors into your decision, but alone is insufficient to produce the effect of the purchase, and isn't necessary to the decision to purchase because after all, you might just like wearing nice suits with no intention of impressing anyone. The essence of the seventh statement is that not all cause and effect sequences that are true will appear true at first. In the spirit of my previous examples, I release a napkin. The napkin falls. Gravity would an intermediary cause/effect. When I release the napkin, I subject it to gravity. When gravity is subjected upon the napkin, the napkin falls. If I were to release the napkin without gravity (or any force) acting upon it, nothing would happen. In the latter, the intermediary cause/effect makes the primary cause responsible for the effect. The absence of this intermediary cause would lead to no effect. Please give evidence of the following: Effects without causes. Effects preceding causes. Effects unrelated to causes. As far as probabilistic causes, the burden of proof is on myself. Simply put, a coin flip is an example probabilistic cause. I flip the coin. The coin may either land on heads or tails, with 50% chance of each (assuming it's a normal, balanced coin). There is a probability that I will get 10 heads in a row. However, the odds are slim '0.5^10'. The larger the sample size the more the effect will conform and adequately describe the probability. However, I must flip the coin before I get heads or tails. Flipping the coin will not ALWAYS yield heads, as it will not ALWAYS yield tails. It will, however, ALWAYS yield either heads or tails in predictable probabilities. Just because the cause has two possible effects does not mean these are "random" or "unpredictable". The case of individual particles versus large samples is a testament to probabilistic causes... whatever causes the particles to decay does so in a documented pattern. Over one half-life, there is a 50% chance the particle will decay. Just as over the next half-life. It may survive several half-life cycles, but the 50% odds of decay each half life remain true. The particle cannot be considered in isolation of other particles because you intentionally miss the larger "law" that is occurring and determining whether or not the particle decays or does not. Hypothetically, there may be a "true random", but this has not been discovered yet in reality. When the question is whether or not nature is predictable, reality is all that matters.
| |
| Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 01:14 pm And, take for example the throwing of a ball, It is a simple matter nowadays to exactly predict the final position (state) of the ball given knowledge of the initial conditions, (mass, force applied, angles, etc). Likewise it is possible, though more complicated, to state whether a coin will land heads or tails, given sufficient knowledge of initial conditions. Now we move on to more complex systems like, say, the weather. theoretically, it would be possible to know all initial conditions and so exactly predict the outcome, (the weather in Dallas at 3:29pm Tuesday) but we simply do not have the computing power as of yet. Then comes a stickier situation, at the sub-microscopic (quantum) scale, the uncertainty principle tells us that we can can NEVER know the initial conditions of a particle with 100% accuracy, the very act of observing the particle effects its condition, know its momentum at the expense of knowing its position etc. Far greater minds than mine debate this issue with no resolution as of yet, but looking at history, everyone thought Einstien had cracked it beyond doubt, only for some of his reasoning to be found to be flawed down the line. I personally believe the Uncertainty principle will go the same way too (If only it would be me who disproved it )
| |
Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 01:47 pm
Because the decay isn't a strictly random phenomenon, as detailed above.
|
