yet more metaphysics (the part where it gets good)
bob - You are relying on a concept that has no basis in fact to explain a fact that you experience on a daily basis. Try this experiment. Pay very close attention to your own thoughts and the feelings that go with them and make a "rational decision" about whether or not you want to have the same sorts of thoughts and feelings in the future. When you realize that you are indulging in some self pity or are over critical perhaps "think" about how you could instead "choose" to focus on how lucky you are or on the positive qualities in the people around you. After a few months of this notice how your thoughts and emotions have changed for the better and then "decide" if you want to continue with this. You'll be believing in your own free will in no time.
butcher boy - bob wrote: You are relying on a concept that has no basis in fact to explain a fact that you experience on a daily basis.
free will is not a fact. That is just the problem. Given the law of cause and effect, it seems much more likely that free will is only an illusion.
Quote:
Try this experiment. Pay very close attention to your own thoughts and the feelings that go with them and make a "rational decision" about whether or not you want to have the same sorts of thoughts and feelings in the future. When you realize that you are indulging in some self pity or are over critical perhaps "think" about how you could instead "choose" to focus on how lucky you are or on the positive qualities in the people around you. After a few months of this notice how your thoughts and emotions have changed for the better and then "decide" if you want to continue with this. You'll be believing in your own free will in no time.
This is all very nice but even you have had to put specific words in quotation marks. Now why did you need to do that? I may well be believing in free will in no time (in fact I do believe in free will). That is not the issue though. The issue is is that belief well founded? Not that I can see. In fact to me it seems to be the ultimate act of faith as it goes against one of the most basic laws we know - cause and effect. So the problem remains.
bob - Let's take this position of yours to it's logical conclusion.
Some billions of years ago the universe big banged it's way into existence and at that point a cause effect chain of reactions was set off which essentially determined EVERYTHING that was to come after. Every last detail. Including, for example, the decision I just made.... hang on, to scratch my ass. And this feeling I have that I should perhaps try to be kinder to my wife is nothing more than an electro-chemical event. An electro-chemical event whose outcome was already decided some billions of years ago. And the music I happen to hear, the books I read, this conversation I am having with you now were also all predetermined way back when, as were the emotional reactions and insights that might come from those experiences. Similarly everything that you do, everything that you experience and learn from in subtle and complex ways was also predetermined from the start. Your conscious participation in these events has no effect. No need to consider the pros and cons of anything because it has already been determined what you will do.
Honestly, does the scenario that I am describing here resonante in any way with that deep part of yourself that knows it is alive? The part that FEELS things like love and that big burden of guilt. The part that feels responsible for it's actions? Maybe this sense of freedom we have is, like you say, just an illusion, but by god you have to admit it is a persistant illusion, and the facts of life sure come into focus fast when you accept the apparent reality of choice. Choice within a context of course. Choices within the parameters of what you consciously and unconsciously know now, but choice nevertheless. There are a lot mysteries. Existence is a mystery. The origins of life are a mystery. Life's consciousness of itself is a mystery. Free will and our ethical nature are mysteries. If you accept the idea of god, then there is another mystery. My question is does another mystery help to explain the mysteries that already confront us?
jdsmith - I said this earlier in this thread, but it seems I should say it again:
God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends ALL human categories of thought. joseph campbell.
You must at least think about this before you start discussing God's will and free will.
Faith is the supposedly intangible aspect of religion that many people get hung up on. But I feel, faith is intrinsic to us...we eat until we are full..yet as thinking beings, why don't we eat until all available food is gone? Physical limitations be damned. Why not eat every last berry, or every last fry? Because Faith allows us the belief that there wil be more fries in the future. I've seen a guy eat 60 hotdogs...far beyond normal physical limitations.
Why do we have faith? We are people mostly positive about their daily existence? How many people run screaming through the streets "I need to eat!"
God is something we cannot ever comprehend. And that's ok.We're smart enough to recognize out own insignificance as well as our own individual purpose. Does that mean god does not exist? No. Does that prove god's existence? No.
So what?
A great great part of literature, the religion of literature, is that the more one reads, the more one knows one doesn't know.
And again, that's ok.
Who's judging?
Peace.
bob - [quote="jdsmith"] God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends ALL human categories of thought. joseph campbell.
That sounds to me like another one of those supposedly brilliant lines conjured up by some supposedly brilliant person that when looked at a little less obsequiously seem rather less brilliant. To start with why would we need a metaphor for something that absolutely transcends human thought? It might just be my narcisism acting up here again but I thought we were doing a pretty good job of thinking about these things right here. And why specify human? Does he imagine monkeys do a more insightful job of pondering these questions?
jdsmith - No, he implies that as humans we ONLY can even consider these things. And if you dont know what a metaphor is, look it up. They are powerful entities.
And this may just be MY narcisim talking.
bob - jdsmith wrote: No, he implies that as humans we ONLY can even consider these things. And if you dont know what a metaphor is, look it up. They are powerful entities.
And this may just be MY narcisim talking.
Powerful entities. Yeah the questionaire said something about that. I said that yes I believed I was a powerful entity but actually what I meant was that there were powerful entities living INSIDE me and that they only became manifest during certain phases of the moon. They didn't leave room for that on the questionaire though. Cheap bastards.
butcher boy - bob wrote: You are relying on a concept that has no basis in fact to explain a fact that you experience on a daily basis.
free will is not a fact. That is just the problem. Given the law of cause and effect, it seems much more likely that free will is only an illusion.
Quote:
Try this experiment. Pay very close attention to your own thoughts and the feelings that go with them and make a "rational decision" about whether or not you want to have the same sorts of thoughts and feelings in the future. When you realize that you are indulging in some self pity or are over critical perhaps "think" about how you could instead "choose" to focus on how lucky you are or on the positive qualities in the people around you. After a few months of this notice how your thoughts and emotions have changed for the better and then "decide" if you want to continue with this. You'll be believing in your own free will in no time.
This is all very nice but even you have had to put specific words in quotation marks. Now why did you need to do that? I may well be believing in free will in no time (in fact I do believe in free will). That is not the issue though. The issue is is that belief well founded? Not that I can see. In fact to me it seems to be the ultimate act of faith as it goes against one of the most basic laws we know - cause and effect. So the problem remains.
bob - Let's take this position of yours to it's logical conclusion.
Some billions of years ago the universe big banged it's way into existence and at that point a cause effect chain of reactions was set off which essentially determined EVERYTHING that was to come after. Every last detail. Including, for example, the decision I just made.... hang on, to scratch my ass. And this feeling I have that I should perhaps try to be kinder to my wife is nothing more than an electro-chemical event. An electro-chemical event whose outcome was already decided some billions of years ago. And the music I happen to hear, the books I read, this conversation I am having with you now were also all predetermined way back when, as were the emotional reactions and insights that might come from those experiences. Similarly everything that you do, everything that you experience and learn from in subtle and complex ways was also predetermined from the start. Your conscious participation in these events has no effect. No need to consider the pros and cons of anything because it has already been determined what you will do.
Honestly, does the scenario that I am describing here resonante in any way with that deep part of yourself that knows it is alive? The part that FEELS things like love and that big burden of guilt. The part that feels responsible for it's actions? Maybe this sense of freedom we have is, like you say, just an illusion, but by god you have to admit it is a persistant illusion, and the facts of life sure come into focus fast when you accept the apparent reality of choice. Choice within a context of course. Choices within the parameters of what you consciously and unconsciously know now, but choice nevertheless. There are a lot mysteries. Existence is a mystery. The origins of life are a mystery. Life's consciousness of itself is a mystery. Free will and our ethical nature are mysteries. If you accept the idea of god, then there is another mystery. My question is does another mystery help to explain the mysteries that already confront us?
jdsmith - I said this earlier in this thread, but it seems I should say it again:
God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends ALL human categories of thought. joseph campbell.
You must at least think about this before you start discussing God's will and free will.
Faith is the supposedly intangible aspect of religion that many people get hung up on. But I feel, faith is intrinsic to us...we eat until we are full..yet as thinking beings, why don't we eat until all available food is gone? Physical limitations be damned. Why not eat every last berry, or every last fry? Because Faith allows us the belief that there wil be more fries in the future. I've seen a guy eat 60 hotdogs...far beyond normal physical limitations.
Why do we have faith? We are people mostly positive about their daily existence? How many people run screaming through the streets "I need to eat!"
God is something we cannot ever comprehend. And that's ok.We're smart enough to recognize out own insignificance as well as our own individual purpose. Does that mean god does not exist? No. Does that prove god's existence? No.
So what?
A great great part of literature, the religion of literature, is that the more one reads, the more one knows one doesn't know.
And again, that's ok.
Who's judging?
Peace.
bob - [quote="jdsmith"] God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends ALL human categories of thought. joseph campbell.
That sounds to me like another one of those supposedly brilliant lines conjured up by some supposedly brilliant person that when looked at a little less obsequiously seem rather less brilliant. To start with why would we need a metaphor for something that absolutely transcends human thought? It might just be my narcisism acting up here again but I thought we were doing a pretty good job of thinking about these things right here. And why specify human? Does he imagine monkeys do a more insightful job of pondering these questions?
jdsmith - No, he implies that as humans we ONLY can even consider these things. And if you dont know what a metaphor is, look it up. They are powerful entities.
And this may just be MY narcisim talking.
bob - jdsmith wrote: No, he implies that as humans we ONLY can even consider these things. And if you dont know what a metaphor is, look it up. They are powerful entities.
And this may just be MY narcisim talking.
Powerful entities. Yeah the questionaire said something about that. I said that yes I believed I was a powerful entity but actually what I meant was that there were powerful entities living INSIDE me and that they only became manifest during certain phases of the moon. They didn't leave room for that on the questionaire though. Cheap bastards.
posted by david at 10:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home