What philosophy offends you most?

[Ecurb]

Ecurb!

Just thought I'd chime in. You'd be pretty accurate in your 'proposition' of those so-called lines being blurred (GE has been struggling a little bit there). A common example is during everyday cognition, one experiences feelings of both will and intellect; an insoluble mix of ideas, thoughts and feelings. Too, there are many real-world examples like the feelings about experiencing different numbers, or the words yes or no, or aesthetic properties/qualities of objects (people or things), and a variety of other conscious phenomena relative to perceiving a thought, a thing, or an idea. More often than not, people make decisions based on feelings of objects.

With respect to a logical proposition, the synthetic a priori is the archetype of an innate sense of curiosity and wonder that causes one to posit the proposition: all events must have a cause. A 'some-thing' beyond pure reason is causing a person to utter those words, which are coming from self-awareness, and/or self-organized ideas (one's stream of conscious thoughts). The will to posit such 'logic' is more or less a metaphysical need for understanding reality. Yet, needs to understand reality, wonder and curiosity, in-themselves have no biological survival advantages compared to other instinctive survival needs. Its primary effects relate to our 'quality of life' (Qualia, etc.) stuff. Existentially, it's like feelings that cause us to either live or die. Or the (metaphysical) Will to commit suicide when one's quality of life is suffering or unsatisfactory. A big distinction between animal instinct there.

We can't touch these things-in-themselves, like logic or the Will and so on, but its there to experience. It's all part of parsing quality v. quantity determinations.

You and GE keep repeating the highlighted bit. I'd suggest that "cause'" has several meanings:

1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition is also used by experimental scientists.

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.

IN normal usage, "cause' refers to the first two definitions. We haven't the perfect knowledge to claim "all things have a cause" in the 3rd sense (except in artificial systems like math). Of course all events are preceded by other events, and followed by other events. Does this imply "causality"? I don't think so.

If all things have a cause, then that cause must be the Big Bang (or Creation). This is a fatalistic way of looking at the universe. Everything and nothing is the "cause" of all things. To the physicist the apple falls from the tree because of the laws of gravity. To the biologist, the apple falls because its stem begins to rot and weaken. To the meteorologis, the wind shakes the tree and causes the apple to fall. To the hungry boy sitting beneath the tree, the apple falls because he prayed it would fall so he could eat it. All are the cause and none are the cause; all are coincidences, destined from the beginning of time. (Stolen from War and Peace, although I didn't look it up and Tolstoy probably said it far better.)

To GE's point about dispassionate reason, I offer this G.K. Chesterton quote, with which I concur:
“You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”

[GE Morton]

Webster:

Rationalization : the act, process, or result of rationalizing : a way of describing, interpreting, or explaining something (such as bad behavior) that makes it seem proper, more attractive, etc.

Based on this definition, rationalization is indeed a defense mechanism, but is not necessarily unsound. If someone wants to believe something, he may "rationalize" his belief with either sound or unsound arguments (I'll grant that the definition is unclear, but so is the distinctions between rationalization and rational inquiry.)

If the argument sound, per common usage, it becomes a rationale, not a "rationalization." The latter implies the argument is specious in some way.

A theorist can make sound arguments even if influenced by strong feeling or emotional involvement.

Certainly. The issue is whether those strong feelings tempt one into ignoring evidence or committing fallacies.

[3017Metaphysician]

Ecurb!

Just thought I'd chime in. You'd be pretty accurate in your 'proposition' of those so-called lines being blurred (GE has been struggling a little bit there). A common example is during everyday cognition, one experiences feelings of both will and intellect; an insoluble mix of ideas, thoughts and feelings. Too, there are many real-world examples like the feelings about experiencing different numbers, or the words yes or no, or aesthetic properties/qualities of objects (people or things), and a variety of other conscious phenomena relative to perceiving a thought, a thing, or an idea. More often than not, people make decisions based on feelings of objects.

With respect to a logical proposition, the synthetic a priori is the archetype of an innate sense of curiosity and wonder that causes one to posit the proposition: all events must have a cause. A 'some-thing' beyond pure reason is causing a person to utter those words, which are coming from self-awareness, and/or self-organized ideas (one's stream of conscious thoughts). The will to posit such 'logic' is more or less a metaphysical need for understanding reality. Yet, needs to understand reality, wonder and curiosity, in-themselves have no biological survival advantages compared to other instinctive survival needs. Its primary effects relate to our 'quality of life' (Qualia, etc.) stuff. Existentially, it's like feelings that cause us to either live or die. Or the (metaphysical) Will to commit suicide when one's quality of life is suffering or unsatisfactory. A big distinction between animal instinct there.

We can't touch these things-in-themselves, like logic or the Will and so on, but its there to experience. It's all part of parsing quality v. quantity determinations.

You and GE keep repeating the highlighted bit. I'd suggest that "cause'" has several meanings:

1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition is also used by experimental scientists.

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.

IN normal usage, "cause' refers to the first two definitions. We haven't the perfect knowledge to claim "all things have a cause" in the 3rd sense (except in artificial systems like math). Of course all events are preceded by other events, and followed by other events. Does this imply "causality"? I don't think so.

If all things have a cause, then that cause must be the Big Bang (or Creation). This is a fatalistic way of looking at the universe. Everything and nothing is the "cause" of all things. To the physicist the apple falls from the tree because of the laws of gravity. To the biologist, the apple falls because its stem begins to rot and weaken. To the meteorologis, the wind shakes the tree and causes the apple to fall. To the hungry boy sitting beneath the tree, the apple falls because he prayed it would fall so he could eat it. All are the cause and none are the cause; all are coincidences, destined from the beginning of time. (Stolen from War and Peace, although I didn't look it up and Tolstoy probably said it far better.)

To GE's point about dispassionate reason, I offer this G.K. Chesterton quote, with which I concur:
“You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”

Thank you Ecurb for your insight. Lot's to parse there. A quick glance at Agency (item 1) relates to an individual who has, in our discussion, a will to commit acts of violence. Or said another way, a will that causes violence. With respect to GE', I think he's trying to advance some sort of argument suggesting all neuron's have Agency. Of course, if that were the case, they'd have properties and cooresponding qualities of anger, sadness, intellect, language and so on. For some reason, he's fallen and can't get up Henceforth, his talking neuron's.

[GE Morton]

With respect to a logical proposition, the synthetic a priori is the archetype of an innate sense of curiosity and wonder that causes one to posit the proposition: all events must have a cause. A 'some-thing' beyond pure reason is causing a person to utter those words, which are coming from self-awareness, and/or self-organized ideas (one's stream of conscious thoughts). The will to posit such 'logic' is more or less a metaphysical need for understanding reality. Yet, needs to understand reality, wonder and curiosity, in-themselves have no biological survival advantages compared to other instinctive survival needs. Its primary effects relate to our 'quality of life' (Qualia, etc.) stuff. Existentially, it's like feelings that cause us to either live or die. Or the (metaphysical) Will to commit suicide when one's quality of life is suffering or unsatisfactory. A big distinction between animal instinct there.

We can't touch these things-in-themselves, like logic or the Will and so on, but its there to experience. It's all part of parsing quality v. quantity determinations.

You and GE keep repeating the highlighted bit. I'd suggest that "cause'" has several meanings:

1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition is also used by experimental scientists.

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.

IN normal usage, "cause' refers to the first two definitions. We haven't the perfect knowledge to claim "all things have a cause" in the 3rd sense (except in artificial systems like math). Of course all events are preceded by other events, and followed by other events. Does this imply "causality"? I don't think so.

Those three are all equivalent. They all reduce to, "Given conditions C, if X is added, Y always follows." But all X's are themselves part of a chain of causes, and we can always point to some prior event, W, as the cause of X and therefore ultimately of Y. But usually we are concerned to find the proximate cause, the X which, when added to C, reliably brings about Y.

And you're right that we assume that all events have causes. We assume that because explanation consists in finding causes for events, and we are innately determined to try to explain things; it is a drive hard-wired into our brains, what Kant called a "category," and as 3017 says, a "synthetic" proposition whose truth we accept a priori and constantly act upon --- even though we can question it intellectually. (He is wrong, of course, about that drive having no evolutionary advantages. It confers huge advantages).

It is an assumption, however, and not a confirmed truth. Might there be uncaused events? We can neither rule that out nor claim for any event for which we can find no cause that it is in fact uncaused. Such knowledge would require us to be omniscient, which we aren't. So the possibility will always remain open.

If all things have a cause, then that cause must be the Big Bang (or Creation). This is a fatalistic way of looking at the universe. Everything and nothing is the "cause" of all things.

The theory of the "cyclic universe" avoids that problem.

https://www.accessscience.com/content/c ... ory/176017

[GE Morton]

Thank you Ecurb for your insight. Lot's to parse there. A quick glance at Agency (item 1) relates to an individual who has, in our discussion, a will to commit acts of violence. Or said another way, a will that causes violence.

Er, no. Saying that an individual (person) wills violence is NOT "another way of saying" that the "will" causes violence. Those two statements are not equivalent. All animal actions, violent or non-violent, are caused by neural processes in their brains. A felt desire or intention to act are merely the tokens by which those processes are represented in consciousness. Those tokens have no causal efficacy.

With respect to GE', I think he's trying to advance some sort of argument suggesting all neuron's have Agency.

Er, no. You persist with that misattribution because YOU assume, falsely, that if an organism possesses "agency," and its acts are caused by neural activity, then the neurons must also have agency. I.e., you don't understand (or refuse to acknowledge) why that is a "category mistake." That claim is as absurd as claiming that if an animal can walk, then the neurons which control the leg muscles must also be able to walk.

[Ecurb]

Those three are all equivalent. They all reduce to, "Given conditions C, if X is added, Y always follows." But all X's are themselves part of a chain of causes, and we can always point to some prior event, W, as the cause of X and therefore ultimately of Y. But usually we are concerned to find the proximate cause, the X which, when added to C, reliably brings about Y.

And you're right that we assume that all events have causes. We assume that because explanation consists in finding causes for events, and we are innately determined to try to explain things; it is a drive hard-wired into our brains, what Kant called a "category," and as 3017 says, a "synthetic" proposition whose truth we accept a priori and constantly act upon --- even though we can question it intellectually. (He is wrong, of course, about that drive having no evolutionary advantages. It confers huge advantages).

It is an assumption, however, and not a confirmed truth. Might there be uncaused events? We can neither rule that out nor claim for any event for which we can find no cause that it is in fact uncaused. Such knowledge would require us to be omniscient, which we aren't. So the possibility will always remain open.

If all things have a cause, then that cause must be the Big Bang (or Creation). This is a fatalistic way of looking at the universe. Everything and nothing is the "cause" of all things.

The theory of the "cyclic universe" avoids that problem.

https://www.accessscience.com/content/c ... ory/176017

I agree in general. The variable in experimental science) is the handle we can manipulate. Do bacteria "cause" disease? Maybe not, until we developed antibiotics. After all, some people are infected and never become ill. Bacteria are necessary, but not sufficient for disease. But now that they are a handle we can manipulate (with penicillon) the word "cause" is appropriate.

[3017Metaphysician]

Thank you Ecurb for your insight. Lot's to parse there. A quick glance at Agency (item 1) relates to an individual who has, in our discussion, a will to commit acts of violence. Or said another way, a will that causes violence.

Er, no. Saying that an individual (person) wills violence is NOT "another way of saying" that the "will" causes violence. Those two statements are not equivalent. All animal actions, violent or non-violent, are caused by neural processes in their brains. A felt desire or intention to act are merely the tokens by which those processes are represented in consciousness. Those tokens have no causal efficacy.

Those animals operate primarily through instinct though, yes? Or, are you suggesting other species have similar qualities of consciousness, like the Will to incite violence and their choices to do same? You know, like human volition. Keep trying GE!

With respect to GE', I think he's trying to advance some sort of argument suggesting all neuron's have Agency.

Er, no. You persist with that misattribution because YOU assume, falsely, that if an organism possesses "agency," and its acts are caused by neural activity, then the neurons must also have agency. I.e., you don't understand (or refuse to acknowledge) why that is a "category mistake." That claim is as absurd as claiming that if an animal can walk, then the neurons which control the leg muscles must also be able to walk.

Thus far, these are the corresponding conclusions one can draw from your argument that all material things (neurons) cause human behavior, like the incitement of violence, anger, having properties and qualities of intellect and so on. Here are your simple 'categorical errors' :

All humans are sentient
All neuron's are in humans
Therefore, all neuron's are sentient

Hence, we can reasonably infer you have angry neuron's that are causing you to incite violence. No? Please feel free to correct the logic, to support your argument, if you are able.

OR:

All humans are material objects
All neuron's are in humans
Therefore, all neuron's are material objects

Hence, we can reasonably infer that all people are 'objects', (including men and women) and should be exclusively treated as such. No? Again, please feel free to correct the logic, to support your argument, if you are able.

Similarly, with respect to material things causing behavior:

All causal laws come from material objects
All human conduct is from causation laws
Therefore, all human conduct comes from material objects

Here, things get a little interesting. This may be the crux of your argument, not sure. Hence, we can reasonably infer that human conduct is not only caused by an inanimate material object (neuron's), but also have no corresponding moral duties associated worth their inanimate properties. Or said another way, no corresponding 'inanimate' duties to behave morally, ethically, or otherwise have feelings about things like anger and violence. No? You know the drill GE!

And that leads to the other (among many) corresponding conclusions from your argument that material things like neuron's causes human conduct:

All humans are genetically determined
All neuron's are in humans
Therefore, all neuron's are genetically determined

This one gets a little deeper. Because Biological Determinism (or Genetic Determinism) is the idea that each of the human behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by human (genetic) nature, we can reasonably infer that those who specifically incite violence, or commit violent acts, are not responsible for same. In other words, since they (their neuron's) are predetermined and are material objects, no responsibility can be assigned to any violent conduct whatsoever. No? Keep going GE!

[GE Morton]

Er, no. Saying that an individual (person) wills violence is NOT "another way of saying" that the "will" causes violence. Those two statements are not equivalent. All animal actions, violent or non-violent, are caused by neural processes in their brains. A felt desire or intention to act are merely the tokens by which those processes are represented in consciousness. Those tokens have no causal efficacy.

Those animals operate primarily through instinct though, yes?

All animals have "instincts," i.e., genetically programmed behavioral dispositions, such as the disposition to secure food. But, no, ""higher" animals (those with large, complex brains), such as mammals and birds, do not "operate primarily through instinct." The "instinct" supplies a goal, but how they go about satisfying it depends on all the circumstances existing at the time, per information delivered via the senses and from memory, which their brains have to process in order to choose a course of action. That is called "thinking," and "problem solving." A cheetah stalking an impala, for example, will choose an approach that puts him downwind from the prey, supplies adequate cover, avoids mistakes he remembers making in the past, etc. They also vary their strategy depending upon the type of prey.

Does the crow solve this puzzle via "instinct"? Or does it require learning and logic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVaITA7eBZE

Or, are you suggesting other species have similar qualities of consciousness, like the Will to incite violence and their choices to do same? You know, like human volition.

All we can know of animal consciousness is what we can infer from their behavior and the structure of their brains --- just as with humans other than ourselves. All mammals and birds have brains large enough to construct a phenomenal model of the world; that, and the many similarities in their behaviors, suggest they experience consciousness. How similar that consciousness --- or yours, for that matter --- is to mine I can't possibly say. There is no way to make a direct comparison.

Thus far, these are the corresponding conclusions one can draw from your argument that all material things (neurons) cause human behavior, like the incitement of violence, anger, having properties and qualities of intellect and so on. Here are your simple 'categorical errors' :

All humans are sentient
All neuron's are in humans
Therefore, all neuron's are sentient

Er, are you attributing that spectacularly fallacious argument to me? (Spectacularly, because not only are both premises false, but the conclusion would not follow even if they were true). Or are you there suggesting that if humans are sentient, and neural processes produce consciousness, that that MUST be my argument?

"Your simple category errors"? The errors there are not mine, since I've not made that argument; that nonsense is entirely yours.

You seem to assume that if an organism is conscious, then its constituent parts, or whatever causes that consciousness, must also be conscious. That assumption is FALSE. It is the category mistake you refuse to acknowledge or correct. Until you grasp that there is no point in continuing this debate.

[3017Metaphysician]

Er, no. Saying that an individual (person) wills violence is NOT "another way of saying" that the "will" causes violence. Those two statements are not equivalent. All animal actions, violent or non-violent, are caused by neural processes in their brains. A felt desire or intention to act are merely the tokens by which those processes are represented in consciousness. Those tokens have no causal efficacy.

Those animals operate primarily through instinct though, yes?

All animals have "instincts," i.e., genetically programmed behavioral dispositions, such as the disposition to secure food. But, no, ""higher" animals (those with large, complex brains), such as mammals and birds, do not "operate primarily through instinct." The "instinct" supplies a goal, but how they go about satisfying it depends on all the circumstances existing at the time, per information delivered via the senses and from memory, which their brains have to process in order to choose a course of action. That is called "thinking," and "problem solving." A cheetah stalking an impala, for example, will choose an approach that puts him downwind from the prey, supplies adequate cover, avoids mistakes he remembers making in the past, etc. They also vary their strategy depending upon the type of prey.

Does the crow solve this puzzle via "instinct"? Or does it require learning and logic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVaITA7eBZE

Or, are you suggesting other species have similar qualities of consciousness, like the Will to incite violence and their choices to do same? You know, like human volition.

All we can know of animal consciousness is what we can infer from their behavior and the structure of their brains --- just as with humans other than ourselves. All mammals and birds have brains large enough to construct a phenomenal model of the world; that, and the many similarities in their behaviors, suggest they experience consciousness. How similar that consciousness --- or yours, for that matter --- is to mine I can't possibly say. There is no way to make a direct comparison.

Thus far, these are the corresponding conclusions one can draw from your argument that all material things (neurons) cause human behavior, like the incitement of violence, anger, having properties and qualities of intellect and so on. Here are your simple 'categorical errors' :

All humans are sentient
All neuron's are in humans
Therefore, all neuron's are sentient

Er, are you attributing that spectacularly fallacious argument to me? (Spectacularly, because not only are both premises false, but the conclusion would not follow even if they were true). Or are you there suggesting that if humans are sentient, and neural processes produce consciousness, that that MUST be my argument?

"Your simple category errors"? The errors there are not mine, since I've not made that argument; that nonsense is entirely yours.

You seem to assume that if an organism is conscious, then its constituent parts, or whatever causes that consciousness, must also be conscious. That assumption is FALSE. It is the category mistake you refuse to acknowledge or correct. Until you grasp that there is no point in continuing this debate.

GE!

Don't give up now! Remember, when the going gets tough the tough get going LOL. I'll be responding to your concerns point by point. However, we shouldn't loose site of the/your particularly obvious category errors.

After a cursory read of this response, the one glaring takeaway thus far is your equivocation(s). Accordingly, If you're saying they're all false, then correct the logic. If you're saying they're all true, then you must believe you have angry talking neuron's, consider men and women as objects, and believe people should have no responsibility for their actions. Unreasonable?

[3017Metaphysician]

Er, no. Saying that an individual (person) wills violence is NOT "another way of saying" that the "will" causes violence. Those two statements are not equivalent. All animal actions, violent or non-violent, are caused by neural processes in their brains. A felt desire or intention to act are merely the tokens by which those processes are represented in consciousness. Those tokens have no causal efficacy.

Those animals operate primarily through instinct though, yes?

All animals have "instincts," i.e., genetically programmed behavioral dispositions, such as the disposition to secure food. But, no, ""higher" animals (those with large, complex brains), such as mammals and birds, do not "operate primarily through instinct." The "instinct" supplies a goal, but how they go about satisfying it depends on all the circumstances existing at the time, per information delivered via the senses and from memory, which their brains have to process in order to choose a course of action. That is called "thinking," and "problem solving." A cheetah stalking an impala, for example, will choose an approach that puts him downwind from the prey, supplies adequate cover, avoids mistakes he remembers making in the past, etc. They also vary their strategy depending upon the type of prey.

Does the crow solve this puzzle via "instinct"? Or does it require learning and logic?

Great questions. However, I'm a afraid the answers only serve to weaken your case. For instance, emergent instincts are like the birds that are self-organized enough to swarm together during the migration and mating seasons. That particular cause of behavior relates to self-organized genetically coded information that in-turn causes them to do their thing. It's an an innate, fixed pattern of behavior. Their learning potential is associated with previous spatial experiences compared with similar situations.

The distinctions of human consciousness, correspond to similar self-organized properties of information processing that are more qualitative in nature. Or in simple terms, an idea itself causes things to happen, behave or exist. Like the engineer who has the Will to design a structure starting with an idea using abstract mathematics. The cause behind the structure is the idea itself, along with his will to do so. Ideas, wills, those kinds of things in-themselves, you can't see, touch, smell or taste. But you can sense them once they come into existence, all in your mind. Animals do not have instincts that cause them to run calculations, and wonder about the needs for many other human quality-of-life 'stuff'.

Accordingly, there is no real 'goal' associated with an animal who needs 'prey' to survive. Human goals correspond with qualitative properties from self-awareness. And your 'choosing and approach...downward to prey' is all relative to genetically coded instinct and spatial learning, not intellectual knowledge of some underlying abstract law of gravity or laws of motion. Unfortunately, much like your neuron theory, in this case your conflating instincts for food with information processing, self-awareness, volition, one's will to choose from a flow of intellectual ideas, and other quality of life stuff that human beings appreciate. Pretty simple right? And of course, similar ideas and knowledge that enhance our quality of life like performing abstract mathematical calculations, practicing music theory, choosing different dress sizes, so on and so forth, confer no biological survival value.

So much of that only serves to weaken your physical or material 'neuron argument' relative to the ethical or moral 'causes' behind why people behave the way they do. Human conduct and behavior, once again, has meaning only when its associated with quality of life stuff, not inanimate matter.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVaITA7eBZE

Or, are you suggesting other species have similar qualities of consciousness, like the Will to incite violence and their choices to do same? You know, like human volition.

All we can know of animal consciousness is what we can infer from their behavior and the structure of their brains --- just as with humans other than ourselves. All mammals and birds have brains large enough to construct a phenomenal model of the world; that, and the many similarities in their behaviors, suggest they experience consciousness. How similar that consciousness --- or yours, for that matter --- is to mine I can't possibly say. There is no way to make a direct comparison.

Thus far, these are the corresponding conclusions one can draw from your argument that all material things (neurons) cause human behavior, like the incitement of violence, anger, having properties and qualities of intellect and so on. Here are your simple 'categorical errors' :

All humans are sentient
All neuron's are in humans
Therefore, all neuron's are sentient

Er, are you attributing that spectacularly fallacious argument to me? (Spectacularly, because not only are both premises false, but the conclusion would not follow even if they were true). Or are you there suggesting that if humans are sentient, and neural processes produce consciousness, that that MUST be my argument?

"Your simple category errors"? The errors there are not mine, since I've not made that argument; that nonsense is entirely yours.

You seem to assume that if an organism is conscious, then its constituent parts, or whatever causes that consciousness, must also be conscious. That assumption is FALSE. It is the category mistake you refuse to acknowledge or correct. Until you grasp that there is no point in continuing this debate.

From what I understand, you are claiming that not only the brain causes consciousness (whatever that means) and/or material neuron's exclusively cause human (violent) behavior, correct? To be brutally honest, we really haven't even begun the debate because you refuse to advance your position in any real reasoned, cogent, or coherent kind of way. I consider it fact-finding at this juncture. So having to put 'logic' to your so-called arbitrary claim about the exclusivity of material neuron's, I am helping you parse your own argument.

Please share what it is that you are otherwise trying to prove? Remember, there is no shame in admitting your theory is not very well thought out, or is only a partial theory, only shame in denying its limitations.

We'll come back to that logic thing, unless of course you feel like it's irrelevant to your theory?

[WindowtotheWorld]

I have a deep dislike for Atheism as a cultural edifice (as opposed to merely a bare-bones intellectual stance.) Rather, the whole culture that follows upon its heels, which essentially reduces to "eat, drink and be merry." In other words, all that matters in life is furthering the passions, and there is no other transcendent reference point for human existence. This is not to say that all atheists are wanton hedonists, and that they are all amoral. I understand that humans are always complex beings. But the ideology in general is a sort of bland humanism which I do not feel uplifts the human spirit, but degrades it due to its stultifying and deadening ethic. I feel that a life of idealism and transcendence can truly match the possibilities inherent in humankind.

[LuckyR]

I have a deep dislike for Atheism as a cultural edifice (as opposed to merely a bare-bones intellectual stance.) Rather, the whole culture that follows upon its heels, which essentially reduces to "eat, drink and be merry." In other words, all that matters in life is furthering the passions, and there is no other transcendent reference point for human existence. This is not to say that all atheists are wanton hedonists, and that they are all amoral. I understand that humans are always complex beings. But the ideology in general is a sort of bland humanism which I do not feel uplifts the human spirit, but degrades it due to its stultifying and deadening ethic. I feel that a life of idealism and transcendence can truly match the possibilities inherent in humankind.

Sounds to me that you actually have a deep dislike of hedonism and a poor understanding of atheism, as demonstrated by your poor attempt to try to equate the two.

[WindowtotheWorld]

I have a deep dislike for Atheism as a cultural edifice (as opposed to merely a bare-bones intellectual stance.) Rather, the whole culture that follows upon its heels, which essentially reduces to "eat, drink and be merry." In other words, all that matters in life is furthering the passions, and there is no other transcendent reference point for human existence. This is not to say that all atheists are wanton hedonists, and that they are all amoral. I understand that humans are always complex beings. But the ideology in general is a sort of bland humanism which I do not feel uplifts the human spirit, but degrades it due to its stultifying and deadening ethic. I feel that a life of idealism and transcendence can truly match the possibilities inherent in humankind.

Sounds to me that you actually have a deep dislike of hedonism and a poor understanding of atheism, as demonstrated by your poor attempt to try to equate the two.

Logically the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. But practically speaking they do in terms of culture.

I didn't equate the the two. On the contrary, I distinguished Atheism as a cultural edifice, from a mere intellectual stance, which I can to some extent tolerate and even respect.

[WindowtotheWorld]

My gripe is not with atheism in and of itself, but atheism as it is wedded to human vice and weakness (which it very often is, though not completely).

In an ideal society perhaps Communism could work. Assuming everyone was inherently good. But as it is, most people nowadays think Communism is unworkable and that Karl Marx was wrong.

Assuming we were all free of human weaknesses, then the idea of atheism would not have a corrosive effect. As it stands, too many people I think yield to their passions and use Atheism to that end.

But as a bare-bones intellectual stance of atheism as a "lack of belief" in God, I'm on board with as being in some cases legitimate.

[Sy Borg]

I do not see how disbelief in an ancient war deity fosters non-philosophical hedonism. There can, famously, be a great deal of hedonism going on in churches behind the scenes.

Lucky's post seemed on point to me.