Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Today at 05:36 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Today at 02:11 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 11:42 AM

Reading stabbings
Yesterday at 10:32 PM

Coronavirus crisis
Yesterday at 12:20 PM

Qur'anic studies today
January 12, 2021, 03:05 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 12, 2021, 11:42 AM

Hello
January 09, 2021, 07:46 AM

Paris murder
January 08, 2021, 07:50 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
January 07, 2021, 03:21 AM

The Lady of the Heaven., ...
January 04, 2021, 05:10 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
January 01, 2021, 10:01 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Comments on Hassan V debunker

 (Read 50891 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 8 9 1011 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #270 - January 29, 2010, 11:13 PM

    @ Z10

    Quote
    It's a natural assumption because my consciousness is subject to the laws of nature, I am in direct causal connection with all of nature, it would be incredibly difficult to argue that my consciousness is supernatural and yet in causal connection with nature esp since you run into the interaction problem again.


    So? Are you saying that the nature of conscienceness is NOT what's being questioned, in the first place? yes/no?

    I'm sorry if I'm becoming increasingly annoying but I realy want to make sure I understand you correctly.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #271 - January 29, 2010, 11:22 PM

    No, you're not being annoying, perhaps i'm just too chilled for that, hah

    I'm sorry if i haven't been clear. This is the way I see it:

    1. I am a part of reality.
    2. I have consciousness/ experience/ subjectivity etc.
    3. Every part of me is in a causal natural relationship with the rest of reality.
    4. My consciousness is therefore, in a causal natural relationship with the rest of reality.
    5. My consciousness is therefore, a natural part of reality because of its natural interactions.

    However, the nature of the causal relationship of my consciousness with the rest of reality and the nature of matter itself is where I disagree with physicalism and where I have proposed panpsychism as an alternative thesis.

    To reiterate, my consciousness does have a natural relationship with nature and so I posit that my consciousness is natural, however, the type of relationship that it has and the ontology underlying this relationship is where I agree with you that physicalism is lacking but I don't posit supernaturalism as the answer, rather that our conception of matter needs to change to accomodate a subjective point of view.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #272 - January 29, 2010, 11:53 PM

    @ Z10

    Quote
    No, you're not being annoying, perhaps i'm just too chilled for that, hah

    I'm sorry if i haven't been clear. This is the way I see it:

    1. I am a part of reality.
    2. I have consciousness/ experience/ subjectivity etc.
    3. Every part of me is in a causal natural relationship with the rest of reality.
    4. My consciousness is therefore, in a causal natural relationship with the rest of reality.
    5. My consciousness is therefore, a natural part of reality because of its natural interactions.

    However, the nature of the causal relationship of my consciousness with the rest of reality and the nature of matter itself is where I disagree with physicalism and where I have proposed panpsychism as an alternative thesis.

    To reiterate, my consciousness does have a natural relationship with nature and so I posit that my consciousness is natural, however, the type of relationship that it has and the ontology underlying this relationship is where I agree with you that physicalism is lacking but I don't posit supernaturalism as the answer, rather that our conception of matter needs to change to accomodate a subjective point of view.


    Although I partly agree, partly disagree with you, I have to say, I'm in love with you.

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #273 - January 30, 2010, 12:06 AM

    Do you disagree with me because you are convinced that there is something non-natural about consciousness or because being a muslim you have no choice but to disagree with me?

    if its the latter, i am truly sorry to hear it, you seem to have a grasp of this difficulty that has haunted the greatest minds of the greatest philosophers since plato but you're letting somebody else do the thinking for you.

    And, thank you.  Afro

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #274 - January 30, 2010, 12:12 AM

    Quote
    Do you disagree with me because you are convinced that there is something non-natural about consciousness or because being a muslim you have no choice but to disagree with me?


    I disagree because I don't believe that matter is sentient ALTHOUGH the Quran, in numerous many verses, does IMPLY that matter IS aware.

    Quote
    if its the latter, i am truly sorry to hear it, you seem to have a grasp of this difficulty that has haunted the greatest minds of the greatest philosophers since plato but you're letting somebody else do the thinking for you.


    Like I explained above, I don't believe matter can be sentient.

    Quote
    And, thank you.

     

     thnkyu

    A googolplex is *precisely* as far from infinity as is the number 1.--Carl Sagan
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #275 - January 30, 2010, 08:20 AM

    I suppose I've presented you with the argument from my side, if you wish to disagree then we can amicably end this discussion here.  Smiley


    ps. I enjoyed our talk but am still saddened that you won't go the whole way and completely trust your own reason rather than scripture. I guess i can hope that will perhaps change in the future...

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #276 - January 31, 2010, 04:49 PM

    I find this "pride based disobedience" concept that Debunker talks about as totally nonsensical and basically little more than a very bad attempt to smear and guilt trip. It just follows the assumption that concepts of "pride" and "disobedience" are inherently obvious and naturally wrong. Why? There is nothing inherently wrong about disobedience or pride. There is no merit in one being obedient. Especially to an imaginary being!


    One more point to be considered:

    What pride?

    If there is a God, we would be so insignificant compared to him that our pride cannot/should not affect him even to the extent that he would bother to torture us in the hell. No matter how many times one repeats that our pride or disbelief or whatever does not affect Allah at all, the Quran makes it glaringly obvious that Allah does care a lot; creating a hell, appointing two angels for each of us to record our actions, sending books and numerous prophets/messengers to warn us, raising all the humans on the JD, judging each of us and then throwing majority of humans in the hell and torturing them for eternity. It sure sounds like an extremely jealous and sadistic God to me.

    What disobedience?

    He, if he exists, has never ever given us any clear command to obey. None of his so called messages/books show any quality of being divine.

    What arrogance?

    Refusing to believe in something which has no evidence is arrogance? And believing without daring to question is humble submission?


    Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
    Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #277 - January 31, 2010, 05:04 PM

    Whats QFT?


    "quoted for truth", or "Quit F**king talking"; depends on the context. :lol:

    Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
    Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #278 - January 31, 2010, 06:19 PM

    saying that matter is sentient is as arbitrary an assumption as assuming soul exists.


    I disagree because I don't believe that matter is sentient ALTHOUGH the Quran, in numerous many verses, does IMPLY that matter IS aware.

    Like I explained above, I don't believe matter can be sentient.


    Your discussion with z10 was quite fascinating; I enjoyed it greatly.

    However, I don't think the two assumptions are equally arbitrary. There is zero evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, and therefore, it is somewhat reasonable to assume that matter can lead to consciousness (without any need for inserting something for which we have no evidence) or that matter itself is sentient.






    Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
    Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #279 - January 31, 2010, 06:33 PM

    Your discussion with z10 was quite fascinating; I enjoyed it greatly.

    However, I don't think the two assumptions are equally arbitrary. There is zero evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, and therefore, it is somewhat reasonable to assume that matter can lead to consciousness (without any need for inserting something for which we have no evidence) or that matter itself is sentient.

    that's it in a nutshell

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #280 - January 31, 2010, 08:28 PM

    ...the Quran makes it glaringly obvious that Allah does care a lot; creating a hell, appointing two angels for each of us to record our actions, sending books and numerous prophets/messengers to warn us, raising all the humans on the JD, judging each of us and then throwing majority of humans in the hell and torturing them for eternity. It sure sounds like an extremely jealous and sadistic God to me.


    Very good point. Allah does care. Debunker was wrong when he said Allah doesn't care about the disbelievers and that Allah just lets people willingly make their way into this nasty place called hell.

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #281 - February 01, 2010, 02:15 AM

    Quote
    Very good point. Allah does care. Debunker was wrong when he said Allah doesn't care about the disbelievers and that Allah just lets people willingly make their way into this nasty place called hell.


    Actually Allah has sealed the hearts of disbelievers so they don't really have a choice.
     

    If you're so devout, how come I am not dead?
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #282 - February 01, 2010, 06:07 AM

    Quote from: TaraC
    Actually Allah has sealed the hearts of disbelievers so they don't really have a choice.


    You mean they don't have a chance in hell

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #283 - February 01, 2010, 06:10 AM

    Very good point. Allah does care. Debunker was wrong when he said Allah doesn't care about the disbelievers and that Allah just lets people willingly make their way into this nasty place called hell.


    Actually according to Debunker the majority don't go to Hell. They go off to the Heights between Paradise and Hell. He has no evidence to back this up but it keeps his mind at ease about a benevolent merciful Allah.

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #284 - February 01, 2010, 07:14 AM

    Yeah where is this heights verse?
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #285 - February 01, 2010, 01:51 PM

    Very good point. Allah does care. Debunker was wrong when he said Allah doesn't care about the disbelievers and that Allah just lets people willingly make their way into this nasty place called hell.


    Thanks J4. If one really wants to understand what "no care" means, one can think of the concept of Karma according to which you only suffer or enjoy the fruits of your action; there is no Judge sitting somewhere on a throne who will judge you on JD.

    In fact, the argument of Debunker about God not caring about what we do and don't renders God wholly unnecessary. Are there aliens on Mars? I don't know and I don't care. And if there are, they seem to be totally ignoring us (not caring about what we are doing) and hence they are unnecessary for all practical purposes as far as I am concerned. It is futile to plan and mold my life w.r.t. Martians.

    Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
    Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #286 - February 01, 2010, 10:05 PM

    Yeah where is this heights verse?


    007.046
    YUSUFALI: Between them shall be a veil, and on the heights will be men who would know every one by his marks: they will call out to the Companions of the Garden, "peace on you": they will not have entered, but they will have an assurance (thereof).

    007.047
    YUSUFALI: When their eyes shall be turned towards the Companions of the Fire, they will say: "Our Lord! send us not to the company of the wrong-doers."

    007.048
    YUSUFALI: The men on the heights will call to certain men whom they will know from their marks, saying: "Of what profit to you were your hoards and your arrogant ways?

    007.049
    YUSUFALI: "Behold! are these not the men whom you swore that Allah with His Mercy would never bless? Enter ye the Garden: no fear shall be on you, nor shall ye grieve."

    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #287 - February 01, 2010, 10:09 PM

    Hm interesting, I think I had heard of this before, I was worried there was no purgatory in Islam which seemed odd that God would let people burn in hell for all time, I mean there had to be a place between hell and heaven.

    But I can't find any tafsir on this or any revelational hadiths. So I'm not really sure what it means. 
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #288 - February 01, 2010, 11:32 PM

    This is the first time I have ever come across the idea of purgatory in Islam...

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #289 - February 02, 2010, 06:27 AM

    Hm interesting, I think I had heard of this before, I was worried there was no purgatory in Islam which seemed odd that God would let people burn in hell for all time, I mean there had to be a place between hell and heaven.

    But I can't find any tafsir on this or any revelational hadiths. So I'm not really sure what it means.  


    This is the tafsir from Ibn Kathir

    (And between them will be a screen) "It is the wall, it is Al-A`raf.'' Mujahid said, "Al-A`raf is a barrier between Paradise and the Fire, a wall that has a gate.'' Ibn Jarir said, "Al-A`raf is plural for `Urf, where every elevated piece of land is known as `Urf to the Arabs.'' As-Suddi said, "Al-A`raf is so named because its residents recognize (Ya`rifun) the people. Al-A`raf's residents are those whose good and bad deeds are equal, as Hudhayfah, Ibn `Abbas, Ibn Mas`ud and several of the Salaf and later generations said.'' Ibn Jarir recorded that Hudhayfah was asked about the people of Al-A`raf and he said, "A people whose good and bad deeds are equal. Their evil deeds prevented them from qualifying to enter Paradise, and their good deeds qualified them to avoid the Fire. Therefore, they are stopped there on the wall until Allah judges them.'' Ma`mar said that Al-Hasan recited this Ayah,

    (and at that time they will not yet have entered it (Paradise), but they will hope to enter (it).) Then he said, "By Allah! Allah did not put this hope in their hearts, except for an honor that He intends to bestow on them.'' Qatadah said; "Those who hope are those among you whom Allah informed of their places.'' Allah said next,

    (And when their eyes will be turned towards the dwellers of the Fire, they will say: "Our Lord! Place us not with the people who are wrongdoers.'') Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "When the people of Al-A`raf look at the people of the Fire and recognize them, they will supplicate, `O Lord! Do not place us with the people who are wrongdoers.'''

    (48. And the men on Al-A`raf will call unto the men whom they would recognize by their marks, saying: "Of what benefit to you was your gathering, and your arrogance'') (49. "Are they those, of whom you swore that Allah would never show them mercy (Behold! It has been said to them): `Enter Paradise, no fear shall be on you, nor shall you grieve.''') Allah states that the people of Al-A`raf will admonish some of the chiefs of the idolators whom they recognize by their marks in the Fire,


    This not a place of permanence its simply a waystation where some people gather for Allah to judge them. Of course the mujahideen gain automatic entrance to paradise so they don't have to queue at the gate.


    Knowing Islam is the only true religion we do not allow propagation of any other religion. How can we allow building of churches and temples when their religion is wrong? Thus we will not allow such wrong things in our countries. - Zakir Naik
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #290 - February 02, 2010, 07:40 AM

    That?s so weird. God takes time to Judge them? Should he not know already know?


    The whole thing sounds so... human. People wait at a gate (the pearly gates?) and God judges them one by one.. and we have to wait 50 000 years. I mean it sounds like Hungarian bureaucracy or something.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #291 - February 03, 2010, 01:18 PM

    Quote
    That's so weird. God takes time to Judge them? Should he not know already know?


    The whole thing sounds so... human. People wait at a gate (the pearly gates?) and God judges them one by one.. and we have to wait 50 000 years. I mean it sounds like Hungarian bureaucracy or something.


    And yet, debunker claims that Allah does not care.

    Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
    Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #292 - February 03, 2010, 01:38 PM

    I wish Kafka was alive in our days. I wonder what he would have made of Islam and the state of the world.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #293 - February 03, 2010, 01:43 PM

    You know, what I wish all the classic writers were alive today. I mean apart from Cormac McCarthy, DeLillo, Roth and Pynchon who do we have that's a heavy weight novelist. I forgot to mention Toni Morrison and Margaret Atwood.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #294 - February 03, 2010, 02:57 PM

    Enid Blyton?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #295 - December 06, 2010, 09:11 PM


    However,  there is a problem with this line of reasoning. Both wetness and non-wetness are governed by the same class of phenomena (ie mass, charge, spin of particles) and so no new ontological category is emerging with "wetness"; to explain the wetness of water you only need to refer to molecular chemistry and some fundamental physics and both these disciplines already enjoy a monopoly of explanations of matter at such a level. However, with experience you can't do the same thing. The problem is that experience cannot in any way be described using the same set of relationships and phenomena, we cannot say that certain mass, charge, spin etc will lead to experience, that's committing a category mistake. So, for experience we need a whole new set of phenomena that acknowledges the representational, the causally active and the subjective qualities of consciousness. These qualities cannot be found in descriptions of fundamental physics and so the analogy of wetness to experience does not work. Emergence cannot be granted be consciousness, matter itself must have some experiential qualities because it is not enough to say that despite our conception of matter has no experiential properties that somehow it still somewhere down the line gives rise to experience. I hope you can see here why I say that it is the very conception of what it means to be physical, to be matter, that needs revision.



    *Bump*

    Please elaborate on this Smiley
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #296 - December 06, 2010, 09:26 PM

    Yes z10,  please elaborate on that point you made 11 months ago

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #297 - December 06, 2010, 09:59 PM

    It was closer to 10 months ago, actually.
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #298 - December 11, 2010, 02:51 PM

    Please elaborate on this Smiley


    I suppose your question is on how it is possible for particles to have experiential qualities?
    Firstly, there are a number of things meant by experience and it has many different aspects - for this explanation I am only focusing on one aspect of the problem. The many aspects include the causal efficacy of the mental, the boundary problem of experience, the qualia problem and so on. I will only be discussing the qualia problem here - in short it is the problem of why it is that our experience has a qualitative nature that is unexplained in its physical properties, so for instance, why is it that red appears as it does even though taking the purely physical definition of red (the wavelength of an electromagnetic wave) offers no suggestion of what the colour feels like.
    The thesis of panpsychism is that the elementary particles that constitute reality have within them experiential qualities to explain this problem of qualia as now we can see how experience exists in the world independent of the purely physical descriptions of objects. This thesis follows from a number of premises and assumptions and I think these assumptions are reasonable to make. So, to begin:

    1. Experience exists.
    This is a premise of the argument and in my opinion the only thing that we can know with certainty - it is beyond doubt.

    2. Experience is a natural aspect of the real world.
    This is an assumption that requires one to accept the established pre-conditions of what it means to "exist" in the real world - ie, that whatever it is that exists conforms to the laws of physics (whatever the truth of them may be) and is embedded in a four dimensional space-time matrix. To reject this premise is to either state that our experience is outside of physical reality and thus a miracle every time we have an experience, or to bluntly reject the existence of experience itself. I think it is a reasonable assumption to accept that experience is a part of physical reality and that it is neither a miracle nor an illusion - it is as natural as any other physical phenomena.

    3. All natural phenomena are constituted by elementary particles.
    This is a rather less firm assumption than the previous one but it is the paradigm of all contemporary physics and philosophical thinking. Perhaps it is the case that this dicing of reality into logical, atomical pieces is just an illusory exercise and that reality itself is one whole without individual parts. Regardless, I do not think it is important at this stage to argue this point either way and because much of current thought is couched in terms of elementary particles I am happy to go along with it for now as a reasonable assumption.

    4. Weak monism is true.
    This is the assumption that there is one kind of stuff in the universe, as opposed to the stronger monistic view that the universe is just one thing. I think weak monism is a reasonable assumption.

    Now, having taken these premises, the case for panpsychism is as follows:

    5. Experience, as I have it, is a real physical property of my body and thus requires explanation in terms of the physical.

    6. From 3, this explanation will take the form of establishing the character of the elementary particles of reality and from there extrapolating to the case of human experience.

    7. The character of the elementary particles, thus, must have within them an explanation of experience. This is the crucial point in this argument. There have been alternatives explored and many of them centre on the idea of emergence.
    Briefly, the idea is that while elementary particles may not have any experiential qualities themselves, they do however have within them the foundations upon which experience then later emerges.
    The classic example, which I attempted to show above, is that of wetness. The example states that while individual molecules of water have no property of wetness, the moment they are brought together at the right temperature (ie speed of motion) the collection of molecules has the property of being wet. The analogy supposedly proves that it is possible to bring together elementary particles such that a new property emerges that is not apparent before the arrangement.
    However, I think this approach is insufficient to account for experience in the same way. Wetness is clearly defined within physics as the motion of molecules within a loose structure at a certain speed and ability to slide free of the other particles. The idea of motion and the idea of structure, even motion that is loose and able to slide free of a structure are all inherent in the idea of the molecule itself. In other words, there is no new matter of fact when one takes molecules together and notices that they display a different motion and structure to before because the laws of motion are already so constrained so as to allow for such motion. The other point is that this definition of molecular motion takes place in exactly the same lexicon as before - we are still discussing charge/mass/spin whether or not we are referring to a water molecule in isolation or to a water molecule in a "wet" structure.
    The case of experience I think is different. Firstly, we do not have a defining concept on what it means to experience like we do for wetness, it cannot be quantitatively measured nor can it be logically delineated - all we know is that we have it, perhaps the having is the knowing but I will leave this part out for now. The point is that while wetness can be seen to be defined with the same parameters that elementary particles are defined by, it is difficult to see how exactly experience can be defined in terms of mass/charge/spin etc.

    8. If we thus reject emergentism, we either suggest that experience somehow has become part of the universe without explanation or that experience was always a part of the universe. The former view is very conservative but some philosophers have suggested it and refused to tackle the problem anymore. I think, however, that the latter view is a more reasonable position. The view is such that it is fair to say that experience is just the firing of neurons, however, the nature of these neurons cannot then be constrained to the same parameters as above – they must have some additional property that has within it the seed of experience, or experience itself, as inherent and not as a brute fact.

    9. Therefore, once it is accepted that experience exists; that experience is as real as any other physical phenomena; that all phenomena is made of the same elementary particles; that phenomena must be explainable in a non-arbitrary way through the properties of those elementary particles, then it follows that those elementary particles must have some sort of experiential quality that can combines to form the experience we have.

    10. Hence, panpsychism.

    There are some provisos to this thesis of course.
    It is impossible to say exactly what the nature of the experience of elementary particles is – all we can say is that there is in some sense an experiential quality. I do not think, using the argument above, that there is any way that we can reasonably deduce the character of this experience but perhaps it is possible to know this through a different argument. This argument cannot encompass that aspect.
    Panpsychism itself faces problems when it begins to speculate on the nature of this experience for particles. The biggest problem is the “combination” problem which simply put is the difficulty of developing a metaphysical system in which one can combine experiences to form one larger experience. Seeing as we have defined experience above as being qualitative, it is difficult to see how we can quantify it when we want to combine the experience of particles to form the experience of a person for instance. However, I do not think this problem detracts from the argument above – what it detracts from is sub-par speculation on the next move, the move to discover the nature of the experience of these particles.
    Finally, this is a metaphysical thesis and thus it will have assumptions – every metaphysical thesis does. The mind-body problem, whichever way it is solved, will definitely require reasonable assumptions to be made and I think I have made reasonable assumptions above. In my opinion, the argument is valid, whether or not one accepts the assumptions that I have made. There are other arguments that can be used to reach the conclusion of panpsychism and I think they can hold as much validity as this one.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Comments on Hassan V debunker
     Reply #299 - December 11, 2010, 03:46 PM

    I think any good religion should neatly include these components

    1) where the subject is God

    a) concepts about God excluding anything apart from God + b) concepts about God including anything apart from God

    2) where the subject is anything apart from God

    a)concepts about anything apart from God including God + b) concepts about anything apart from excluding God



    - quintessence of the necessary components of the individual who worships (what to do, how to do, why to do)

    - exoteric aspects of religion
    - esoteric aspects of religion
    - logic
    - nature of the universe

    matter, elements, atoms

    - nature of existence

    - consciousness and knowledge

    - behaviour of organisms, mostly human less so others (since we ourselves are humans)
  • Previous page 1 ... 8 9 1011 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »