firedragon
Veteran Member
Finally. Some truth.
Supernatural does not enter the realm of the scientific method. That does not mean "science thinks the supernatural is imaginary". That is what you made up.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oh Free-Will. Where art Thou???
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
Finally. Some truth.
Supernatural does not enter the realm of the scientific method. That does not mean "science thinks the supernatural is imaginary". That is what you made up.
Where's that satisfactory demonstration of the supernatural? C'mon, there's a Nobel Prize in this for you! Think of the glory! Think of the bucks!
Don't tell me it was all in your imagination!?
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
You have displayed that you are just making things up on the fly. None of your claims are substantiated. You cant. Because you made them up.
That is why, you are turning it around.
Claims.
1. Science thinks the supernatural are imaginary.
2. Thats philosophy of science.
None are substantiated. Because you made them up.
).
Run run run
as fast as you can
but you can't demonstrate the reality of the supernatural
and until you do, science, which proceeds by empiricism and induction, couldn't give a dang.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Of course science does not give a dang. Thats the whole point.
You are contradicting yourself. You claimed "science thinks of the supernatural as imaginary". You claimed it was part of the philosophy of science. Did not cite a single philosophy of science book that said so. Because now you are right. Science does not give a dang about the supernatural.
That is why you should not make absolutely bogus claims.
I finally got through to you!
Yes, of course it does. Being empiric, it has no choice.
No, I claimed it was a consequence of the philosophy of science.
I had no need to.
Yup. Science is concerned with the real.
That is why if you believe in the supernatural you should give us that satisfactory demonstration of it.That is why you should not make absolutely bogus claims.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Nah. Thats the premise. No one has to get through to anyone.
Not at all. Science does not deal with the supernatural. Thats why you can never in your life provide any evidence to your claim that "science thinks the supernatural is imaginary". that's your own make up.
If I make that claim, I will have to. But I did not. I am only steal manning your own bogus claim. But since you made that claim up, you cannot substantiate it. So, you have no choice but to make up a strawman, and shift the burden of proof.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The original context of the concept of free will and choice was the comparison of humans to animals and natural instinct. Human were considered higher than the animals. Animal nature and their choices are preprogrammed, by the species, in the context of the environment, thereby allowing all of nature to coordinate in 3-D.
Free will allows humans more choices or options to depart from this natural integration. Human can also choose unnatural and synthetic options as well as unnatural environments. Big cities are not natural environments that are coordinated with nature. These choices are not all in our natural DNA, but have to be learned from the outside; school.
The modern tech analogy for free will and choice is done by comparing a preprogrammed computer, to a hypothetical computer that becomes conscious and self aware. The choices of the former are decided exclusively by its preprogrammed logic in the context of various circumstances. The choices of the latter can depart from this internal programming. Something about the human brain allows humans a way to depart from the natural logic circuits connected to its DNA.
The way this is possible for humans is connected to the first person observation that humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and the ego. The inner self is natural and connected to our DNA. This is the center of consciousness that animals also have. The ego, which is quite new on the evolutionary scale; 6-10K years, is a secondary center which can depart from the preprogrammed choices of evolution. There is nothing in evolution that led to the driving of a car.
This departure is connected to learned knowledge and the inferences that the ego can make based on that learned knowledge. The ego is not fully constrained 100%, like an animal, by the natural choices of the inner self.
As an example, the fad choices called gender preference is egocentric and based on the free will of the ego. It is not connected to the inner self; natural side of humans. It is not hard for a male to learn and copy the sterotypicial behavior of a female; watch and learn from the outside. This performance this will often appear exaggerated like a an actor on a stage; drag queen. This is all connected to the will power and choice of the ego, which if performed often enough, starts to look fluid and innate. But it is all ego and not exactly from the inner self, for else it would be better integrated with nature and not trying to center stage.
The basis for free will and choice was the appearance of the secondary center of consciousness; ego. If you compare the two side of the brain, the left brain is more differential while the right brain is more spatial. These two types of neural processing is part of the dividing line between the ego and inner self. The ego attempts to differentiate itself as unique; unique actor or player, while the inner self tries to make us more 3-D homogeneous based on human nature.
In terms of a mathematical model, the spatial nature of the inner self is like a 3-D ball. This 3-D ball can be approximated with a large number of 2-D circles, all with a common center but all at different angles. The ego tends to pick a 2-D circle; cause and affect, while the inner self common to all, is the 3-D ball. Since the circle is a valid part of 3-D ball, the ego can mistake this overlap connection to the inner self as meaning the choice is 3-D, especially if it is unaware there are two centers. A gender choice can feel 3-D; integrated wholeness, while being egocentric 2-D, due to semi-consciousness.
If we go back to the computer analogy, the living computer forms a secondary center that is not part of the original programming, but rather can alter the programming to its own needs, which tend to be more short sighted. In sci fi the smart computers go too far and need to unplugged.
Free will allows humans more choices or options to depart from this natural integration. Human can also choose unnatural and synthetic options as well as unnatural environments. Big cities are not natural environments that are coordinated with nature. These choices are not all in our natural DNA, but have to be learned from the outside; school.
The modern tech analogy for free will and choice is done by comparing a preprogrammed computer, to a hypothetical computer that becomes conscious and self aware. The choices of the former are decided exclusively by its preprogrammed logic in the context of various circumstances. The choices of the latter can depart from this internal programming. Something about the human brain allows humans a way to depart from the natural logic circuits connected to its DNA.
The way this is possible for humans is connected to the first person observation that humans have two centers of consciousness; inner self and the ego. The inner self is natural and connected to our DNA. This is the center of consciousness that animals also have. The ego, which is quite new on the evolutionary scale; 6-10K years, is a secondary center which can depart from the preprogrammed choices of evolution. There is nothing in evolution that led to the driving of a car.
This departure is connected to learned knowledge and the inferences that the ego can make based on that learned knowledge. The ego is not fully constrained 100%, like an animal, by the natural choices of the inner self.
As an example, the fad choices called gender preference is egocentric and based on the free will of the ego. It is not connected to the inner self; natural side of humans. It is not hard for a male to learn and copy the sterotypicial behavior of a female; watch and learn from the outside. This performance this will often appear exaggerated like a an actor on a stage; drag queen. This is all connected to the will power and choice of the ego, which if performed often enough, starts to look fluid and innate. But it is all ego and not exactly from the inner self, for else it would be better integrated with nature and not trying to center stage.
The basis for free will and choice was the appearance of the secondary center of consciousness; ego. If you compare the two side of the brain, the left brain is more differential while the right brain is more spatial. These two types of neural processing is part of the dividing line between the ego and inner self. The ego attempts to differentiate itself as unique; unique actor or player, while the inner self tries to make us more 3-D homogeneous based on human nature.
In terms of a mathematical model, the spatial nature of the inner self is like a 3-D ball. This 3-D ball can be approximated with a large number of 2-D circles, all with a common center but all at different angles. The ego tends to pick a 2-D circle; cause and affect, while the inner self common to all, is the 3-D ball. Since the circle is a valid part of 3-D ball, the ego can mistake this overlap connection to the inner self as meaning the choice is 3-D, especially if it is unaware there are two centers. A gender choice can feel 3-D; integrated wholeness, while being egocentric 2-D, due to semi-consciousness.
If we go back to the computer analogy, the living computer forms a secondary center that is not part of the original programming, but rather can alter the programming to its own needs, which tend to be more short sighted. In sci fi the smart computers go too far and need to unplugged.
Who knows but that one day you may get your brain around empiricism. Good luck!
firedragon
Veteran Member
One day, you might be honest. Maybe, maybe not. Who ever you are, you are absolutely a dishonest person.
firedragon
Veteran Member
that's interesting. When you say original, do you mean earliest or indeed original? What literature is there on this topic? If you could cite me some literature I will be grateful.
Does that mean you disagree with the nurture/nature arguments put forward by any philosopher? Please elaborate.
Who does that? I would like to get some names so that I could read up.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
As far as I know, both Nature and Nuture are used to attempt to describe means by which human actions are determined. It seems to me that compatibilists still have to explain how Nature and Nurture are compatible with Free Will in order to have a complete argument.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I have given a very simple argument provided by compatibilists in the OP. And mind you, that is not a theistic argument, but a completely atheistic argument.
Very funny coming from you.
The truth is simple ─ science works by empiricism and you apparently can't grasp that this rules out imaginary beings like that God you mentioned earlier.
Last edited:
Brian2
Veteran Member
It might rule them out in science, the study of the world that can be studied with empiricism, but does not rule them out absolutely. That is why there is no determinism in science about the existence of God/s. All that sort of stuff comes from people who have a belief that God/s do not exist (or if you like, lack a belief in God/s). Science does not rule it out,,,,,,,,,,,,,, all science does is use naturalistic methodology in it's experiments and conclusions.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Hmm. Thats true. Well put really.
Brian2
Veteran Member
I like the idea that you seemed to be suggesting to me at one point that omniscience may not consist of God actually knowing every teensy little thing about about everything for all time because after all God is probably not really concerned with most things that happen in the universe.
Yes, there are no absolute statements in science or indeed elsewhere.
But the questions remain. What is objective reality? (for me, the world external to the self). What is truth? (for me a statement which corresponds with / accurately reflects reality). If God is not simply an idea then in what manner does God actually exist? If God actually exists, why does [he] neither say nor do?
Brian2
Veteran Member
If things are experienced by humanity in common then those things should be objective reality even if they are internal to us and cannot be empirically studied.
Love, faith, hate, hope, life, feelings, emotions etc are all real but not able to be studied empirically.
God has said and done in the past and imo does and says now also. God has given us enough to believe He exists and accessing God by those who do it through faith. Science obviously has not and cannot do it.
That they're part of human psychology is very hard to doubt.
And the hypothesis that we humans produce gods because of our evolved tendencies as gregarious primates seems equally hard to doubt.
If gods had objective existence, if the supernatural were an actual place, a realm existing independently of any human thought of it, then when the people of South America, North America, Asia, the Pacific and Australia, the people of India and Africa would all see pretty much the same thing, like the men with good eyesight looking at the elephant. Their descriptions might vary, but they'd agree on the essentials ─ large, quadruped, tusked, relatively hairless, and so on. But when humans around the world have looked at the supernatural, they reach nothing even vaguely like a concordance of what that means.
No, that's not correct. They're been studied quite thoroughly, certainly for the past 70 years or so, and the biochemicals that produce them have also been studied. While the more subtle parts of that are a work in progress, some big ones are undoubted ─ the effects of adrenaline, the effects of testosterone, the effects of estrogen, the effects of oxytocin ... and so on.
I don't think that withstands the close-up look. For a start, we don't know of anything that God has said, only what humans have said [he] or they said. And what [he]'s said to have said varies enormously from place to place and religion to religion, which takes us back to what I said above about the inconsistency of reports about the supernatural.