My Theory of Free Will

[Old Things]

To have complete knowledge of something you need to have a full representation of it inside you. If not then some part of it may become something you did not anticipate.

No, I asked you to explain how you know that. I did not ask you to state what you believe again. I'm asking you how you know that God cannot create anything outside of Himself. Defend that position please, rather than just stating it.

All qualia is something either that feels good feels bad or feels neutral.

Not getting what you want would feel bad and thus be a negative quality.

There is no qualia for the number three. But I can think of the number three and have different emotions associated with that every time.

Given what I said: Humans have limits in what they can know and must decide what they want based on some kind of priority. Wants do not need to be just animalistic but they do need to be based on good or bad feelings. You do stuff because it is wanted or not wanted and that means you have to base those wants on something and that means it has to be based on good or bad because you cannot just do stuff based on no reason at all. At all levels of good and bad, we decide what is and is not important on a hierarchy of values. Some things are more good or bad than others and the way we make choices is based on our relation to how we understand causality in achieving those prioritized aims. Qualia is either good bad or neutral meaning qualia and emotions cannot be separated. Emotion is not just "animalistic desire". Emotion is related to all qualia because any action we make depends on good or bad in regard to choice. Emotion is related to all higher values.

This is literally no different than animalistic desires. Animals do the exact same thing.

 

[Old Things]

That is really silly because NONE of us knows - so a new age thought is just as valid as any other. Religion is not science.

I've made several threads over my time here backing up what I believe with concrete reasoning/examples/historical evidence.

It just seems like you play fast and loose with things thinking everything has the same amount of evidence for it so it's like getting a big bucket of random assorted legos with zero instructions and trying to make something coherent.

 

[birdsnestfern]

've made several threads over my time here backing up what I believe with concrete reasoning/examples/historical evidence.

It doesn't matter, that does not prove you are right. This type of thing is not provable. Its just we are sharing ideas to the best of the knowledge we have. Thats all anyone CAN do.

 

[Old Things]

That is why intuition is a far better judge than anything else.

No! Intuition is one of the WORST things to judge things on. Based on the intuitions of one man, he wanted to kill the majority of people on the earth and thought he was doing a good thing.

 

[Black Rose]

To have complete knowledge of something you need to have a full representation of it inside you. If not then some part of it may become something you did not anticipate.

No, I asked you to explain how you know that. I did not ask you to state what you believe again. I'm asking you how you know that God cannot create anything outside of Himself. Defend that position please, rather than just stating it.

I do not know if it is true or not but what I said can be viewed as logically sound.

If the argument I presented makes no sense to you please explain why?

All qualia is something either that feels good feels bad or feels neutral.

Not getting what you want would feel bad and thus be a negative quality.

There is no qualia for the number three. But I can think of the number three and have different emotions associated with that every time.

If you have no qualia thinking of the number three then that is simply the awareness of an unconscious process and all awareness has a qualia associated with it. So you have the qualia of the awareness of an unconscious process.

Given what I said: Humans have limits in what they can know and must decide what they want based on some kind of priority. Wants do not need to be just animalistic but they do need to be based on good or bad feelings. You do stuff because it is wanted or not wanted and that means you have to base those wants on something and that means it has to be based on good or bad because you cannot just do stuff based on no reason at all. At all levels of good and bad, we decide what is and is not important on a hierarchy of values. Some things are more good or bad than others and the way we make choices is based on our relation to how we understand causality in achieving those prioritized aims. Qualia is either good bad or neutral meaning qualia and emotions cannot be separated. Emotion is not just "animalistic desire". Emotion is related to all qualia because any action we make depends on good or bad in regard to choice. Emotion is related to all higher values.

This is literally no different than animalistic desires. Animals do the exact same thing.

In simple terms: If something feels good or bad then that is an emotion and all higher values depend on prioritizing good and bad things to make a choice. Rationally we use our understanding of causality to achieve the aims of our choices.

 

[Old Things]

To have complete knowledge of something you need to have a full representation of it inside you. If not then some part of it may become something you did not anticipate.

No, I asked you to explain how you know that. I did not ask you to state what you believe again. I'm asking you how you know that God cannot create anything outside of Himself. Defend that position please, rather than just stating it.

I do not know if it is true or not but what I said can be viewed as logically sound.

If the argument I presented makes no sense to you please explain why?

All qualia is something either that feels good feels bad or feels neutral.

Not getting what you want would feel bad and thus be a negative quality.

There is no qualia for the number three. But I can think of the number three and have different emotions associated with that every time.

If you have no qualia thinking of the number three then that is simply the awareness of an unconscious process and all awareness has a qualia associated with it. So you have the qualia of the awareness of an unconscious process.

Given what I said: Humans have limits in what they can know and must decide what they want based on some kind of priority. Wants do not need to be just animalistic but they do need to be based on good or bad feelings. You do stuff because it is wanted or not wanted and that means you have to base those wants on something and that means it has to be based on good or bad because you cannot just do stuff based on no reason at all. At all levels of good and bad, we decide what is and is not important on a hierarchy of values. Some things are more good or bad than others and the way we make choices is based on our relation to how we understand causality in achieving those prioritized aims. Qualia is either good bad or neutral meaning qualia and emotions cannot be separated. Emotion is not just "animalistic desire". Emotion is related to all qualia because any action we make depends on good or bad in regard to choice. Emotion is related to all higher values.

This is literally no different than animalistic desires. Animals do the exact same thing.

In simple terms: If something feels good or bad then that is an emotion and all higher values depend on prioritizing good and bad things to make a choice. Rationally we use our understanding of causality to achieve the aims of our choices.

You are being inconsistent.

Everything is a part of God but somehow we still have qualia in the form of emotions, but the byproduct of that is that there is no objective reality since God's qualia is also based on feelings, so therefore everything is subjective and there is no truth.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Remember to respect others rights to their opinion and stay in your own lane please. Some people may have terrible intuition, others have amazingly tuned in intuition. You can't judge another - so simply state your truth and leave it at that. You are not God over others, or their beliefs. You are God over your own choices, that is all. As soon as you force your ideology on others, you become a tyrant and oppressive. Free will means we each have choices about what to believe.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Analogies of God and creation don't work. They all fail on some level or another. For example, in your example, you have already admitted that God is not omniscient. So it goes against your own idea of God.

in my example,

you are a programmer

who has a lot of time to test the program you wrote

before publishing

this is not unbelievable

or impossible to imagine

 

[Black Rose]

You are being inconsistent.

Everything is a part of God but somehow we still have qualia in the form of emotions, but the byproduct of that is that there is no objective reality since God's qualia is also based on feelings, so therefore everything is subjective and there is no truth.

We are inside God and subject to God, God is not subject to anyone or anything but himself.

God is Truth but as per the doctrine of the Trinity has a perfect holly relationship to himself.

The Trinity is the mutual recognition between the father, son and spirit as Truth.

Living beings have relationships with each other by way of mutual recognition of the other as beings in and of themselves.

To us, God is outside us thus objective to us.

Both we and God have feelings because both we and God are living beings.

By Jesus living inside us we have the full relationship to God.

That is why the creation is as it were inside God because God created us as we have a connection to God.

Therefore we cannot be outside of God but we can be disconnected from him.

The objectivity of anything is that it is outside a subject but God is connected to us in many ways and that is why Thomas Aquinas refers to one of the aspects of God as the sustainer.

God's creation is like a baby, not outside God but separated in some way.

God knows what we are but we are small and not so much consciousness to realize the full nature of things.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That is really silly because NONE of us knows - so a new age thought is just as valid as any other. Religion is not science.
And, a demon has a very different feeling from a regular spirit that has passed on. That is why intuition is a far better judge than anything else. And now we are off topic because the topic is free will, not religion. JVP would understand the difference between a spirit and other entity, he is very spiritually adept.

well, LOGIC also works

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I'm asking you how you know that God cannot create anything outside of Himself.

pure logic

in the beginning

there was only god

nothing else

only god

so

the only material available to make things out of

must be

only god

pieces of god

 

[Old Things]

I'm asking you how you know that God cannot create anything outside of Himself.

pure logic

in the beginning

there was only god

nothing else

only god

so

the only material available to make things out of

must be

only god

pieces of god

No, it is not pure logic. It is saying God cannot create something separate from Himself. That is what needs to be proven. Why can't God create something separate from Himself? That's the question and I don't think there are any good answers against that position.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

No, it is not pure logic. It is saying God cannot create something separate from Himself. That is what needs to be proven. Why can't God create something separate from Himself? That's the question and I don't think there are any good answers against that position.

if god is the only thing


then god can only make things


out of pieces of god


and even if god makes "something new"


that thing


whatever it is


is 100% god's will incarnate

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

something separate from Himself

if god created something truly separate from god

then god would be unable to detect that thing

much less

interact with it in any way

 

[Old Things]

then god can only make things


out of pieces of god

That goes against the idea of Ex Nihilo. From nothing.

if god created something truly separate from god

then god would be unable to detect that thing

much less

interact with it in any way

I don't see how that is necessary at all. All I'm saying is that God can create something separate from Himself. Your view is basically pantheism, not Deism.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That goes against the idea of Ex Nihilo. From nothing.

did the "will of god" create everything ?


this is a "yes" or "no" question

 

[Black Rose]

All I'm saying is that God can create something separate from Himself.

We really do need not to confuse terms here though.

Nothing is outside or inside God because God has no space-time properties like physical things.

God being objective to us or himself does not mean subjectivity eliminates what Truth is.

God being separate from "creation" is not about God having more or less power of knowledge.

What we as humans find hard to understand is the nonphysical aspect of God.

All we can do is look at the world and see that we exist in space and time.

And most religious persons agree that God is beyond nature, outside space and time.

And if God is outside then all we see is inside as to how we as humans contemplate it.

God is everywhere (omnipresent) nothing is inside or outside God then.

What separates God from "creation" is not a location but an ability.

Rocks cannot create more rocks. God creates everything and God is everywhere.

So God has what rocks do not, that ability to create yet God is everywhere even in the rock.

What allows God to create is his power as the highest being.

And God must be in everything he creates (omnipresent)

Humans have the ability to know feel and be.

Humans have God's nature in them, the image of God.

God allows us to do what we want most times.

What makes something separate from God is just the finite nature of the object.

God is aware of each thing and each thing and all things are subsistent of him.

God holds all things or they would not exist.

God is not just all things because God can create more than just all things.

That is why I said in different words that God chooses what exists and what does not exist. Because he is all-knowing he makes one choice whereas we as humans not having all knowledge must make multiple choices.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What makes something separate from God is just the finite nature of the object.

here's the problem

it sounds like you're describing "substance dualism"

and the fundamental flaw in "substance dualism"

is that

if two substances are truly separate

they cannot interact


for example

if a ghost is "non-physical"

then it cannot interact with physical systems

it cannot detect physical systems and cannot be detected by physical systems

unless it has a shared FUNDAMENTAL SIMILARITY to physical systems


this is why monism is necessarily true

 

[Black Rose]

here's the problem

it sounds like you're describing "substance dualism"

and the fundamental flaw in "substance dualism"

is that

if two substances are truly separate

they cannot interact

unless it has a shared FUNDAMENTAL SIMILARITY to physical systems


this is why monism is necessarily true

I believe in substance monism.

Everything is spiritual in nature imo.

But God is at the top of everything.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I believe in substance monism.

Everything is spiritual in nature imo.

But God is at the top of everything.

right, therefore no-thing, no concept, no phenomenon, no noumenon can ever be "separate" from an omniscient, omnipotent creator

not even for one second

 

[Old Things]

All I'm saying is that God can create something separate from Himself.

We really do need not to confuse terms here though.

Nothing is outside or inside God because God has no space-time properties like physical things.

God being objective to us or himself does not mean subjectivity eliminates what Truth is.

God being separate from "creation" is not about God having more or less power of knowledge.

What we as humans find hard to understand is the nonphysical aspect of God.

All we can do is look at the world and see that we exist in space and time.

And most religious persons agree that God is beyond nature, outside space and time.

And if God is outside then all we see is inside as to how we as humans contemplate it.

God is everywhere (omnipresent) nothing is inside or outside God then.

What separates God from "creation" is not a location but an ability.

Rocks cannot create more rocks. God creates everything and God is everywhere.

So God has what rocks do not, that ability to create yet God is everywhere even in the rock.

What allows God to create is his power as the highest being.

And God must be in everything he creates (omnipresent)

Humans have the ability to know feel and be.

Humans have God's nature in them, the image of God.

God allows us to do what we want most times.

What makes something separate from God is just the finite nature of the object.

God is aware of each thing and each thing and all things are subsistent of him.

God holds all things or they would not exist.

God is not just all things because God can create more than just all things.

That is why I said in different words that God chooses what exists and what does not exist. Because he is all-knowing he makes one choice whereas we as humans not having all knowledge must make multiple choices.

I agree with almost all of this. My only real problem with it is that God does make multiple choices. It says in Genesis that God did not like what humanity had become. So what God did was send a flood that wiped out a lot of the human race. So that was a choice that God made based on what humanity had done.

they cannot interact

That is categorically not the position of substance dualism.

 

[Black Rose]

I agree with almost all of this. My only real problem with it is that God does make multiple choices. It says in Genesis that God did not like what humanity had become. So what God did was send a flood that wiped out a lot of the human race. So that was a choice that God made based on what humanity had done.

I think from the perspective of humans who need to read linear books this may seem so but God having foreknowledge knows everything God will do. God being "above" time has acted in once from his perspective.

 

[Old Things]

I agree with almost all of this. My only real problem with it is that God does make multiple choices. It says in Genesis that God did not like what humanity had become. So what God did was send a flood that wiped out a lot of the human race. So that was a choice that God made based on what humanity had done.

I think from the perspective of humans who need to read linear books this may seem so but God having foreknowledge knows everything God will do. God being "above" time has acted in once from his perspective.

I'm not sure what this is based on. Can you give me a Bible verse that says that God only made one choice (presumably creation)?

 

[Black Rose]

I agree with almost all of this. My only real problem with it is that God does make multiple choices. It says in Genesis that God did not like what humanity had become. So what God did was send a flood that wiped out a lot of the human race. So that was a choice that God made based on what humanity had done.

I think from the perspective of humans who need to read linear books this may seem so but God having foreknowledge knows everything God will do. God being "above" time has acted in once from his perspective.

I'm not sure what this is based on. Can you give me a Bible verse that says that God only made one choice (presumably creation)?

It is an abstract argument.

God is above time and knows everything.
So why would God need to make multiple choices?

If God can make multiple choices then God cannot know everything he will do.

 

[Old Things]

If God can make multiple choices then God cannot know everything he will do.

I don't think that follows logically. I can know in some sense what I will do tomorrow, but this doesn't mean I don't make choices in the moment.

Even if I say, "I will respond to AmineKitty at some time in the future," that doesn't mean when I respond to you in the future that I am not making a choice to do that in the moment.

The alternative is that God is impassable, meaning, God does not feel any emotions. I think that is a false view of God. God does feel emotions. At least the Bible says He feels emotions. It's like saying even though I will watch a movie I have already watched, this doesn't mean I don't feel anything when I watch the movie. I will still feel emotions watching Lord of the Rings, for example, even though I have seen it many times before.

 

[Black Rose]

If God can make multiple choices then God cannot know everything he will do.

I don't think that follows logically. I can know in some sense what I will do tomorrow, but this doesn't mean I don't make choices in the moment.

Even if I say, "I will respond to AmineKitty at some time in the future," that doesn't mean when I respond to you in the future that I am not making a choice to do that in the moment.

The alternative is that God is impassable, meaning, God does not feel any emotions. I think that is a false view of God. God does feel emotions. At least the Bible says He feels emotions. It's like saying even though I will watch a movie I have already watched, this doesn't mean I don't feel anything when I watch the movie. I will still feel emotions watching Lord of the Rings, for example, even though I have seen it many times before.

A choice as some define it is the possibility to have change one's mind. To have been able to do something different if one wanted to. Choices do relate to emotion in the sense that emotion determines what we want to do (emotions tell us that we want good things and not bad things). But if God is above time and feels emotion that emotion is atemporal meaning it is all past present and future combined. If God chooses to do things then it must be from God's perspective not our perspective. So God can feel all past present and future simultaneously but then God decides what the past present and future would all be. God had to make one reality (past present future) and not change his mind. If God changes his mind that would change the past present and future simultaneously. So the only way God makes a "choice" is in what to create not when to create it. He already creates all of time. God chose one possible past present and future. Not all possible timelines. This keeps in with the logic of what a choice is. God could have made a different timeline but chose this timeline. God feels all things in the one timeline he chose to create from his perspective above time. God wanted this timeline, not the other ones. One choice was all that was required, what all "time" would be.

 

[Old Things]

If God can make multiple choices then God cannot know everything he will do.

I don't think that follows logically. I can know in some sense what I will do tomorrow, but this doesn't mean I don't make choices in the moment.

Even if I say, "I will respond to AmineKitty at some time in the future," that doesn't mean when I respond to you in the future that I am not making a choice to do that in the moment.

The alternative is that God is impassable, meaning, God does not feel any emotions. I think that is a false view of God. God does feel emotions. At least the Bible says He feels emotions. It's like saying even though I will watch a movie I have already watched, this doesn't mean I don't feel anything when I watch the movie. I will still feel emotions watching Lord of the Rings, for example, even though I have seen it many times before.

A choice as some define it is the possibility to have change one's mind. To have been able to do something different if one wanted to. Choices do relate to emotion in the sense that emotion determines what we want to do (emotions tell us that we want good things and not bad things). But if God is above time and feels emotion that emotion is atemporal meaning it is all past present and future combined. If God chooses to do things then it must be from God's perspective not our perspective. So God can feel all past present and future simultaneously but then God decides what the past present and future would all be. God had to make one reality (past present future) and not change his mind. If God changes his mind that would change the past present and future simultaneously. So the only way God makes a "choice" is in what to create not when to create it. He already creates all of time. God chose one possible past present and future. Not all possible timelines. This keeps in with the logic of what a choice is. God could have made a different timeline but chose this timeline. God feels all things in the one timeline he chose to create from his perspective above time. God wanted this timeline, not the other ones. One choice was all that was required, what all "time" would be.

Thanks for explaining. Isn't this just hard determinism, then?

 

[Black Rose]

A choice as some define it is the possibility to have change one's mind. To have been able to do something different if one wanted to. Choices do relate to emotion in the sense that emotion determines what we want to do (emotions tell us that we want good things and not bad things). But if God is above time and feels emotion that emotion is atemporal meaning it is all past present and future combined. If God chooses to do things then it must be from God's perspective not our perspective. So God can feel all past present and future simultaneously but then God decides what the past present and future would all be. God had to make one reality (past present future) and not change his mind. If God changes his mind that would change the past present and future simultaneously. So the only way God makes a "choice" is in what to create not when to create it. He already creates all of time. God chose one possible past present and future. Not all possible timelines. This keeps in with the logic of what a choice is. God could have made a different timeline but chose this timeline. God feels all things in the one timeline he chose to create from his perspective above time. God wanted this timeline, not the other ones. One choice was all that was required, what all "time" would be.

Thanks for explaining. Isn't this just hard determinism, then?

Could be?

I do not know if there is any way to change the future of the past without some form of intervention of quantum physics I have come to know about.

Indeterminism would mean God at some smaller level has no knowledge.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That is categorically not the position of substance dualism.

but it is the PROBLEM that substance dualism CANNOT SOLVE

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

God does feel emotions.

human emotion is the result of chemical reactions

 

[Old Things]

That is categorically not the position of substance dualism.

but it is the PROBLEM that substance dualism CANNOT SOLVE

What do you even think substance dualists believe? They think the soul is what animates the body.

God does feel emotions.

human emotion is the result of chemical reactions

Well, God is not human though, and doesn't have a brain.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Well, God is not human though, and doesn't have a brain.

exactly

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What do you even think substance dualists believe? They think the soul is what animates the body.

how do the "spirit" and "the body" interact ?

what "substance" bridges the gap ?

 

[Old Things]

Well, God is not human though, and doesn't have a brain.

exactly

So emotions are exclusive to the brain? Mind explaining that?

 

[Old Things]

What do you even think substance dualists believe? They think the soul is what animates the body.

how do the "spirit" and "the body" interact ?

what "substance" bridges the gap ?

Substance dualists believe that the soul is immaterial. They believe the soul is the thing that dictates what the body does.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So emotions are exclusive to the brain? Mind explaining that?

Neurotransmitters are chemical messenger molecules produced by neurons to electrochemically deliver a message across a synapse. They are produced by neurons in advance and stored inside them until the appropriate moment.

The electrical gradient inside neurons is governed by the movement of Ca2+ (calcium ions) which works together with magnesium and ATP, the “energy molecule.” When calcium floods into the neuron, it increases the electrical potential of the cell which causes the stored neurotransmitters to move to the neuron’s membrane and be expelled across the synapse. The electrical potential gradient generated with calcium and ATP moves across to the next neuron to open up neurotransmitter receptors and is continuous to form nerve transmission. Neurotransmitters that are not absorbed by the next neuron as a result of closed receptors (each of which are specific to the molecule in question) are either recycled or degraded.

It has long since been acknowledged that certain levels of neurotransmitters in the brain are linked to inducing certain emotions. Neurotransmitters appear to be associated with maintaining states of perception, cognition, awareness and a number of bodily processes, having complex functions over and above that of emotion and behavior. It is the combination of neurotransmitters that get broadcast as well as their levels relative to one another that contributes to our experiential state, emotion included[1].

There are three basic neurotransmitters that are each associated with three basic states of emotion. Combinations of these neurotransmitters produce different types of emotion[2]. They include:

1. Serotonin associated with punishment/dislike and sadness.

2. Dopamine associated with pleasure/reward and joy.

3. Adrenaline and noradrenaline associated with surprise/arousal and fear or anger.

The emotional outcome is also dependent on the brain areas they engage with as well as the functionality of receptors.

Endocrine Activity​

Hormones also contribute to producing hormones in a way similar to neurotransmitters, modulating the function and expression of neurons. Unlike neurotransmitters, hormones do not interact at neuronal synapses and are found in the bloodstream. Some hormones exert their influence at the cell’s membrane, some need to be taken up by the cell in order to do so and some can exert actions in both manners.

The brain produces hormones that often lead to the release of other hormones in distant body sites. For instance, cortisol releasing hormone stimulates for the adrenal glands to produce cortisol. The blood levels of cortisol then affect brain function by binding on neuronal receptors. Adrenal hormones, reproductive hormones and thyroidal hormones are the main influencers that affect the brain and their levels are also associated with different emotional states.

FEELINGS & THE NEURO-CHEMISTRY OF EMOTION | Mya Care

What are feelings anyway? Neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers alike have long puzzled over this question. The word feeling originally referred to the physical sensation of touch. The meaning was later expanded to include emotion, alluding to the way in which our emotions “touch” us...

myacare.com

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Substance dualists believe that the soul is immaterial. They believe the soul is the thing that dictates what the body does.

ok,

HOW

HOW exactly does an "immaterial" "substance" interact with a material substance ?

i mean

unless they are comprised of the same fundamental stuff ?


by definition

two things that are fundamentally distinct

cannot detect each other

or interact in any way

 

[Old Things]

Substance dualists believe that the soul is immaterial. They believe the soul is the thing that dictates what the body does.

ok,

HOW

HOW exactly does an "immaterial" "substance" interact with a material substance ?

i mean

unless they are comprised of the same fundamental stuff ?


by definition

two things that are fundamentally distinct

cannot detect each other

or interact in any way

You show a lack of understanding what substance dualism entails. If you really want to know, I would recommend you get this book:

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You show a lack of understanding what substance dualism entails.

you show a lack of understanding what basic logic entails


either soul and body CAN interact (and therefore share properties)

or

soul and body CANNOT interact (and are therefore fundamentally distinct)

 

[Old Things]

You show a lack of understanding what substance dualism entails.

you show a lack of understanding what basic logic entails


either soul and body CAN interact (and therefore share properties)

or

soul and body CANNOT interact (and are therefore fundamentally distinct)

Again, this is not logic. It is reduction.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Again, this is not logic. It is reduction.

do you believe a chair and a table are "fundamentally distinct" ?

 

[Old Things]

Again, this is not logic. It is reduction.

do you believe a chair and a table are "fundamentally distinct" ?

Depends on how you define it. If it is in purpose, then yes, they are.

 

[Old Things]

@LOGICZOMBIE,

The Mind/Body problem has been shown to be one of the most difficult problems to solve in the realm of science. Simply stating a reductionistic view of the issue is not helping anything.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The Mind/Body problem has been shown to be one of the most difficult problems to solve in the realm of science. Simply stating a reductionistic view of the issue is not helping anything.

that's like saying

software cannot interact with hardware

therefore

robots are impossible

 

[Old Things]

The Mind/Body problem has been shown to be one of the most difficult problems to solve in the realm of science. Simply stating a reductionistic view of the issue is not helping anything.

that's like saying

software cannot interact with hardware

therefore

robots are impossible

Show a little humility. Good grief!

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The Mind/Body problem has been shown to be one of the most difficult problems to solve in the realm of science. Simply stating a reductionistic view of the issue is not helping anything.

that's like saying

software cannot interact with hardware

therefore

robots are impossible

Show a little humility. Good grief!

mind and body are both comprised of energy

just like software and hardware

it's not even slightly mysterious

there is extensive evidence

 

[Old Things]

The Mind/Body problem has been shown to be one of the most difficult problems to solve in the realm of science. Simply stating a reductionistic view of the issue is not helping anything.

that's like saying

software cannot interact with hardware

therefore

robots are impossible

Show a little humility. Good grief!

mind and body are both comprised of energy

just like software and hardware

it's not even slightly mysterious

there is extensive evidence

Okay, well, the experts disagree with you.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Okay, well, the experts disagree with you.

i guess i'll just have to trust you on that incredibly vague claim

 

[Black Rose]

I believe in panpsychism.

Not material panpsychism.

But transcendental panpsychism.

God "hovers above" the waters.

The body is not the source of qualia but is connected to it by its effect.

The binding problem is a problem in philosophy of mind that concerns how objects, background, and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single experience.

Just because neurotransmitters are in a brain does not mean we understand why a brain has emotions. Emotions are correlated with energy movement but then God would be above and see all energy in motion of all physical things.

 

[ZenRaiden]

OK I will try to explain my view on why philosophy breaks down with matter.

Fundamentally matter is something we can perceive.

So in physics everything having matter has to by default interact with other matter.
Since the idea of soul has not qualifiers, ergo there are no actual parameters for soul or metaphysics the issue of material and non material are kind of hard.

For instance if we see a ghost. This means ghosts emit photons, and those photons activate eye sensitive cells in our eyes. Hence light is matter in form of photons.
We can argue that photon is just a super tiny wave, but we can measure it.

Thus anything in physics that can be measured is considered matter.

The true definition of matter inherently thus comes from the idea that all things are somehow connected. If this is so, it means if something is outside of interaction then it no longer is part of this universe as no matter what it does it will never influence anything material.
Hence the question is how does soul that is immaterial interact with body.
The answer is simply that it cannot.
In simple logic it means some part of soul if not all of it, has to be material.
But the word MATERIAL has different meaning in lets say 100 years ago and now days.
Now days we have awareness of quantum physics.
So the word material is used as "things" "immaterial" as ideas.

So actually we aren't dealing with a problem of understanding, but semantic problem of "what do we mean by matter"?

So I think a lot of modern cross-talk is created by people having different definition of phenomena.

To put simply people might even agree on stuff, but they tend to disagree what a word in category means.

Matter = energy in science. Energy = change in science.
So soul of human being with accordance with modern science is material.
Material (scientifically)=/= does not equal material ( spiritually vs physically).