The Incompatibility of God and Matter

[ernestm]

For myself, though, I don't really need or care for proof. I just object to naivety on demands for proof. There is no proof. The existence of God from the argument of intelligent design is a VALID INDUCTION. You may choose not to agree with is corroboration, that's your choice to believe. It's still a valid induction. juist because you think the induction is wrong does not mean it is not an induction.

Just as much as the the existence of Santa Claus from the argument of the gifts under the Christmas tree is a VALID INDUCTION.

I was waiting for that. VALIDITY merely states that the terms in the premise and conclusion are sufficiently homogenous for truth evaluation, that;s all. I even spent 10 minutes figuring out how to say that in one sentence because I expected some stupid remark about it.AND I HAD TO REPEAT IT TWICE.

What you call some stupid remark was just a reminder that you couldn't go further than the "that's all". Despite the limits you put in your own argument, you end up affirming the truth of the conclusion. You have insisted it is an inductive argument, but...

• "[...]In the sense of logical consequence central to the current tradition, such “necessary sufficiency” distinguishes deductive validity from inductive validity. In inductively valid arguments, the (joint) truth of the premises is very likely (but not necessarily) sufficient for the truth of the conclusion. An inductively valid argument is such that, as it is often put, its premises make its conclusion more likely or more reasonable (even though the conclusion may well be untrue given the joint truth of the premises). "

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fal ... nsequence/

So you end up with a statement that is not necessarily true, but you have chosen to believe is true (for some reason that remains outside of your argument).

Usually. Evidence for the inference does remain as evidence.

[value]

... modern Nature Mysticism is based on the idea that matter is energy which today is confirmed by science and of which Albert Einstein once said:

What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.

Then the question would be: what is energy? Would the ideas of Berkeley apply en be valid in that case?

If the reality is matter is configurations of energy, or fields, or vibrating strings or whatever, and the physical world of matter and solid objects is a construction of our brains, I'm fine with that. Science seems to be heading in very unintuitive directions about the fundamental nature of reality. I have a half baked pet theory that consciousness might be a type of field, a bit like the Higgs Field, which transformationally interacts with other fields in the particular ways manifesting. Who knows.

That's a little different to my understanding of Berkely's position, but Berkely didn't have the knowledge we do today. He could well have been on the right track. I'm happy to go where the boffins take us, however wacky it seems, because we know enough to know we're not very good at intuiting reality beyond our useful 'Darwinian fictions' of solid tables and cause and effect.

God tho, is a different type of concept to me. Tho as a concept God has changed a lot, and is a label you can attach to pretty much anything. My point in the remark you quoted, is that many concepts of God have been usurped as our ability to understand the world grows. The God of the Gaps retreats to the questions we still can't answer. What is the fundamental nature of reality, what is consciousness, what is morality, why does anything exist, etc. This is a million miles away from the conception of the tribal Jewish God Yahweh, who strolled around the Garden of Eden in the Middle East, or that same God who helped his chosen people to destroy competing tribes in land grabs, or allowed them to be occupied or taken into slavery for disobeying his will. Or the Yahweh of Jesus, who was going to set up a new kingdom on earth in Jerusalem. Those tribal concerns aren't how we think of God today, our understanding of the world raises different questions and concerns, and our conceptions of God adapt along. Tho some early sects had a more mystical bent, such as the Gnostics.

The omni God is a place-holder answer to questions like why does anything exist, why does morality exist, but is still a bit like a Super Parent as viewed by a young child, who can do anything and knows everything and is ultimately powerful. And it's psychologically difficult to learn our own parents aren't really like that, that we have to deal with a world where bad **** happens no matter what, there's not always ultimate justice, we can't control or know everything, and we're going to suffer and die. It doesn't seem right.

Abstract and speculative apologetics about a God so beyond our understanding is an inevitably speculative and rarified game in that context imo. I find it pretty distasteful to be honest.

Thank you for the interesting insights.

If matter is energy then it would be at question whether the brain can 'construct' reality. Do you have a substantiation for the idea?

Re Schopenhaur, as I understand him -

''Schopenhauer identifies the thing-in-itself—the inner essence of everything—as will: a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge, outside of space and time, and free of all multiplicity. The world as representation is, therefore, the "objectification" of the will.''

I recently viewed an interview of philosophy professor and Schoppenhauer scholar Frederick Coplestone (famous for a BBC interview with Bertrand Russell) by British philosopher Bryan Magee that mentioned that Schoppenhauer's 'Will' should have been named 'energy' and that Schoppenhauer argued that matter is energy.

Coplestone: Schoppenauer uses the world Will, perhaps unfortunately. One might use energy.

... below conscious drive that Schoppenhauer called Will and that perhaps some better name can be given to is force or energy.

Bryan Magee: Yes he thought that if we analyze this world of experience - the world of science if you like - the world of common sense, which does consist for the most part of matter in motion and most of it is matter in colossal amounts, I mean Galaxies and Solar systems and so on, travelling through the cosmos at gigantic speeds, so the whole material Universe consists of matter in motion to a degree that so to speak defies our imagination to really conceptualize it and he argued following on from Kant that all what is ultimate in all this must be energy.

Schoppenhauer argued that matter is as it were instantiated energy and that a physical object is a space filled with force and that ultimately all matter must be transmutable into energy.

...

Schoppenhauer argues that what is ultimate in this world of phenomena in this world of experience is energy.

Coplestone: Yes.

Position: 16:50

This isn't the omni version of the Abrahamic God. S says the most fundamental nature of reality is a simple mindless striving outside space and time. And what we see as the world is some sort of representation of that.

As it appears from the interview with Schoppenhauer scholar Coplestone, that fundamental nature of matter is 'energy'.

Another quote from the video (22:05):

Bryan Magee: I think it would have been better if Schoppenhauer would have used the world energy because he decided to give the term the name Will to this metaphysical reality and I think that has misled people ever since.

Well as soon as someone talks speculatively about what exists outside space and time (this applies to those types of gods too), my first question is How can you possibly know what exists outside space and time?

If such a thing as outside space and time can even be said to exist, we have no access to it. Our inside space and time notions of reason and logic have no relation to outside space and time, so even speculation has no secure grounding. It's another place to speculatively fill in gaps in our understanding without having to be constrained by evidence or reason, physics or metaphysics. It either resonates with you or it doesn't.

Mystics seem to explore a world outside of space and time. Did you ever read anything on mysticism? It describes a plain of infinity that can be accessed using intuitive experience.

[Sy Borg]

I think confusion has occurred, to extent, through language. Consider these beliefs:

1. Someone believes that the Earth is flat.

2. Someone believes they will write a bestseller.

I think theism has always been based on the second kind of belief, being a drive to actualise rather than a statement of ontology. In antiquity, did people try to prove or disprove the existence of Zeus and Jupiter? That would be as inappropriate as trying to disprove that an author will one day write a bestseller, with an inevitably inconclusive result.

The attempt by religion to prove itself by competing with science on science's turf is based on a category error. It wants to use the physical tools of science to apprehend the metaphysical. That is ultimately a matter of materialism interfering with belief systems, mistakenly applying the logic of #1 to the question of #2.

Theists need to ask themselves, 'Where do I experience God?' and the answer is: in your head. God is subjective. If theists did not confuse themselves with their own materialism, they would value their subjective deity enough to not need objective validation. Why would theists undervalue the subjective domain, which is ultimately our entire individual existence? Why must they paint their deity as an ontological presence?

Why are they not content for each to have their own deity in their head? My guess: their survival instinct is seeking answers to the problem of death.

[3017Metaphysician]

Explain how information processing is physical!

Huh? Did you use as computer to write that? Does that machine process information? Is it not physical?

Sure. Your Metaphysical Will, you know, that qualitative property of the mind that causes you to press the keyboard, is that all physical?

Keep trying!

The physical produces consciousness, but the latter is not "metaphysical." It is a physical effect. And there is no "vice-versa."

No. That's only half the equation. You keep forgetting about qualitative properties of existing thingies! You know, the information processing work that the brain does which which causes all human behavior, like the metaphysical Will!

Well, you just contradicted yourself. "The information processing that the brain does"? Is the brain physical? Did you not just above, question how information processing could be physical?

I'm not following that. The brain is both physical and metaphysical, no? Otherwise, you must explain how neurons cause all human behavior. You know, your Will to do stuff!!

Keep trying GE!

Yes, information processing is a physical process, whether performed in computers or brains. Those qualitative properties are also the products of brains. No qualitative properties exist other than those produced by brains.

No. Those are quantitative properties, no?

Keep trying!

No. Quantum observation not only requires an observer with a metaphysical Will (the need to observe stuff), but quantum particles do weird things like pop in and out of existence.

So what? Quantum particles are theoretical constructs. We can make them do anything we want.

Really? What purpose does that serve?



Quantum theory requires an observer with a brain, but not any "metaphysical will" (whatever that is).

What causes an observer to want to observe stuff?

Keep trying GE!

(Paraphrase): "Without information processing nothing could exist."

Now, what evidence could you possibly have for that claim?

Evidence contained within this forum. You know, human's typing on keyboard thingies!

Er, evidence that someone is typing on a keyboard is evidence nothing could exist without information processing?

Where did you learn logic?

Sure. The meta-physical Will, that thingie you can't touch, smell, hear, taste, etc. that causes you do type thingies (like thoughts about stuff) on keyboards, no?

Does that mean if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it that it still exists?

Per physicalist theory, yes.

Sure, but the physicalist needs a Subjective experience to posit such theories, no?

Keep trying!

No, the "will" is not a "quality of a neural thingie." It is a phenomenal representation of a neural state or process. That representation has no causal powers; only the neural process which produces it does.

No. The Will, a qualitative property of consciousness, which causes you to live and not die has causal powers, not the physical process. The Will takes primacy in all human behavior, not your neurons. Neurons are just means to ends. You know, like happy or sad neuron thingies that you arbitrarily think have causal power. Otherwise, you bear the burden in explaining your theory of how neurons get sad enough to, say, end their lives? Or, if you prefer, tell us whether our neurons desire to make us happy, or do we tell them to be happy to affect our behavior?

Well, you're just repeating yourself and begging the question. There is not a shred of evidence that "the will . . . causes you to live and not die." Babies (not only among humans, but all animals) are born every day without anyone willing it. And they certainly die every day, regardless of whether they have a "will to live." That there are physical causes for both phenomena, on the other hand, is ubiquitous and obvious.

But you haven't explained how neurons cause us to do stuff?? You know, like type on keyboards, live and die, love and hate each other, buy stuff, and all other qualitative properties of conscious existence. You know, stuff that confers purpose, teleology, anthropic principles, and so on. Otherwise, please explain or provide an exclusive physical theory, if you can!

This "information narrative" of yours is a figment of your imagination, another useless "metaphysical" phantasm. Your argument above is the "argument from design" in different terms, and is just as question-begging as the original version. There is no logical implication from patterns to designs, and no evidence whatever that observable patterns in nature must have one. They have causes, to be sure, but the assumption that they are instantiations of pre-existing designs (such as might be concocted by a sentient creature) is baseless; it is primitive anthropomorphism.

Sure. We agree, information and instruction takes primacy in the existence of physical matter. Is that what you mean?

Huh? "We agree"? You utter a statement contradicting (but not refuting) what I'd just said, yet "we agree"?

Yes, I thought you meant that for physical stuff to exist, there is information and instruction that causes its existence, no?

Was Singularity an accident? Please share your theory of where Singularity came from, if you can!

It came from the minds of physicists. It is a hypothetical state obtained by increasing gravitational forces to infinity. It is, in other words, a figment of some physicist's imaginations.

But you just told us that if a physical tree falls in the forest and no one hears or sees it that it still falls. So where did physical Singularity come from? How is that possible? Otherwise, are you advocating for subjective idealism of some kind? You know, subject-object logically necessary stuff that involves information processing thingies! Like a subject known as a physicist observing objects, no?

Well, you just ignored, rather than rebutted, my previous comment. Nothing has "value in itself." Whatever value a thing has, it has it only because some valuer has assigned that value to it. Value is not a property, or "quality," of the thing; it is only a pseudo-property denoting some valuer's desire for or approval of it. No observation, no analysis, no laboratory test, will reveal the value of, say, a gold coin, and when that is the case you're not entitled to claim the coin has "intrinsic value." The only means you have of determining the value of anything is by observing what some valuer will give up to secure it or preserve it --- it will then have that value to him.

Are you suggesting some type of Subjective Idealism takes primacy?

Now, how did you extract that "suggestion" from what I said above? What I said was that "value" is a relational term denoting a desire by some sentient creature for, or approval of, something or other. It is not a property of the thing so desired.

Are you suggesting humans don't Will or desire to do stuff? How is that possible without having qualitative properties of all thingies??

Another easy one --- no, they don't, though they may serve certain purposes of ours.

Really, Are ecological systems superfluous and unnecessary for life? Please explain your theory, if you have one!

Whether or not they are necessary for life is irrelevant to whether they have a "purpose" --- other than those purposes of ours which they serve. They have none of their own.

Oh my GE, you may want to read-up on basic causation. Please don't take this the wrong way, but your responses don't explain any causal mechanism or causal chain of events that describes how humans do stuff, much less how physical matter came into being (where Singularity came from). Now you seem to be saying or suggesting that our entire ecosystem is either not self-organized enough to cause life, or in your words, is "irrelevant" to life. How is that logically possible?

Please share your theory, if you have one!

[Sy Borg]

It's a simple issue: you have energy/matter that logically has a configuration. It's impossible for matter to have no configuration, no properties. Thus, information processing requires a physical substrate.

More compelling, though, will be seeing how GE Morton formats future replies, given Metaphysician's inability to use BB code.

[3017Metaphysician]

It's a simple issue: you have energy/matter that logically has a configuration. It's impossible for matter to have no configuration, no properties. Thus, information processing requires a physical substrate.

More compelling, though, will be seeing how GE Morton formats future replies, given Metaphysician's inability to use BB code.

That doesn't follow from the premises. Think of it like subject-object. Your Will to do stuff requires information processing. You know, ideas, thoughts and feelings, intentionally or otherwise things that would not interest you.

You may be in a similar quandary with GE. You both seem very discombobulated over cause and effect. Remember, materialism attempts to explain everything including all human behavior from material events.

He seems to be stuck on neural activity, maybe you can help him. For instance, do neurons tell you how to behave, or do you tell your neurons out of behave? In either case, please share your theory about how neurons possess information, instruction and agency!!

[Sy Borg]

It's a simple issue: you have energy/matter that logically has a configuration. It's impossible for matter to have no configuration, no properties. Thus, information processing requires a physical substrate.

More compelling, though, will be seeing how GE Morton formats future replies, given Metaphysician's inability to use BB code.

That doesn't follow from the premises. Think of it like subject-object. Your Will to do stuff requires information processing. You know, ideas, thoughts and feelings, intentionally or otherwise things that would not interest you.

You may be in a similar quandary with GE. You both seem very discombobulated over cause and effect. Remember, materialism attempts to explain everything including all human behavior from material events.

He seems to be stuck on neural activity, maybe you can help him. For instance, do neurons tell you how to behave, or do you tell your neurons out of behave? In either case, please share your theory about how neurons possess information, instruction and agency!!

I am not a materialist, and I don't care for such blanket affiliations. I am just pointing out an obvious fact that stuff must have a configuration and configurations only exist in stuff. I am tiring of your ad homs and unnecessary personal comments. A continuation will result in official warnings. Robust debate is fine, but you have been getting away with overly personal comments and attacks for a while now. Please let go of your war and stay with the thread content.

As for your issues with how brains work, do not forget internal, intermediate and external feedback loops. Consciousness cannot persist without external stimuli, there's constant looping. W can safely discount the Iron Age Middle Eastern deity as a cause; it's an extremely low probability. A Hagelin-esque intelligent unified field that is filtered by the brain would seem more likely, although panpsychism is speculative.

If I was to agree with an -ism, it would be panvitalism. It seems to me that all the universe is a living system of sorts but, like a baby, it's not very sentient. Panvitalism is also speculative and there's no way to prove it. That just seems most likely to me but I'm not wedded to the idea. The jury remains out.

[GE Morton]

Explain how information processing is physical!

Huh? Did you use as computer to write that? Does that machine process information? Is it not physical?

Sure. Your Metaphysical Will, you know, that qualitative property of the mind that causes you to press the keyboard, is that all physical?

This is a waste of time. You continue to beg the question, repeat questions already answered (while ignoring those answers), repeat claims already refuted, and persist with your vacuous "metaphysical" this's and thats.

Again --- no, the "will" is not "metaphysical," nor is it a "property of the mind." It is just a name we give to one of the many contents of consciousness, the totality of which we call "mind." "Will" denotes and our awareness of, represents, a decision a neural network in our brains has made. That representation doesn't cause any action; it merely informs us of it.

No point slogging through the rest. It has all been covered before.

[3017Metaphysician]

Explain how information processing is physical!

Huh? Did you use as computer to write that? Does that machine process information? Is it not physical?

Sure. Your Metaphysical Will, you know, that qualitative property of the mind that causes you to press the keyboard, is that all physical?

This is a waste of time. You continue to beg the question, repeat questions already answered (while ignoring those answers), repeat claims already refuted, and persist with your vacuous "metaphysical" this's and thats.

Again --- no, the "will" is not "metaphysical," nor is it a "property of the mind." It is just a name we give to one of the many contents of consciousness, the totality of which we call "mind." "Will" denotes and our awareness of, represents, a decision a neural network in our brains has made. That representation doesn't cause any action; it merely informs us of it.

No point slogging through the rest. It has all been covered before.

Nope. Again, you both seem very discombobulated over cause and effect. Remember, materialism attempts to explain everything including all human behavior from material events.

You both seems to be stuck on neural activity. For instance, do neurons tell you how to behave, or do you tell your neurons out of behave? In either case, please share your theory about how neurons possess information, instruction and agency!!

The inability to articulate the specific argument will prove my point.

I anxiously awake a reply from either you, or a materialist who is willing to engage in debate and not distract from the matter at hand. No pun intended!

[Count Lucanor]

Usually. Evidence for the inference does remain as evidence.

Again, the same applies for every single rationalized belief, as ridiculously false as it may be. It works for Santa, as has been noticed, the Tooth Fairy, etc. And yeah, those are childish remarks, because there's no other option: the whole god thing is, as Einstein said: an "honourable, but still primitive, legend which (is) nevertheless pretty childish". I would drop the "honourable". A glorified fairy tale.

[Sy Borg]

Usually. Evidence for the inference does remain as evidence.

Again, the same applies for every single rationalized belief, as ridiculously false as it may be. It works for Santa, as has been noticed, the Tooth Fairy, etc. And yeah, those are childish remarks, because there's no other option: the whole god thing is, as Einstein said: an "honourable, but still primitive, legend which (is) nevertheless pretty childish". I would drop the "honourable". A glorified fairy tale.

I do not see the Santa comparison as childish. The Santa concept in itself is childish, but the comparison is exact in the sense that neither Santa nor God can be definitively disproved. There's no point appealing to the limits of physics with either because each operates in another dimension.

While religions are based on myths, the myths themselves are worthy of respect. Before it was possible to write down knowledge, information was passed down the generations orally. The myths would have become ever more outrageous to make them more memorable and, presumably, some occasional artistic licence was applied by the more creative teachers. Not to mention the usual degraded accuracy with oral communication over generations.

The intent was no doubt usually admirable and many ideas passed down were probably important at the time. However, modern literal interpretations of obviously poetic and metaphorical Biblical prose is ridiculous, not to mention confusion about the many culturally-specific edicts and political polemic (usually disparaging anything the hated Canaanites did).

Whatever, no matter how far researchers probe into reality, there will always be gaps in which deities can reside.

[ernestm]

Usually. Evidence for the inference does remain as evidence.

Again, the same applies for every single rationalized belief, as ridiculously false as it may be. It works for Santa, as has been noticed, the Tooth Fairy, etc. And yeah, those are childish remarks, because there's no other option: the whole god thing is, as Einstein said: an "honourable, but still primitive, legend which (is) nevertheless pretty childish". I would drop the "honourable". A glorified fairy tale.

I do not see the Santa comparison as childish. The Santa concept in itself is childish, but the comparison is exact in the sense that neither Santa nor God can be definitively disproved. There's no point appealing to the limits of physics with either because each operates in another dimension.

While religions are based on myths, the myths themselves are worthy of respect. Before it was possible to write down knowledge, information was passed down the generations orally. The myths would have become ever more outrageous to make them more memorable and, presumably, some occasional artistic licence was applied by the more creative teachers. Not to mention the usual degraded accuracy with oral communication over generations.

The intent was no doubt usually admirable and many ideas passed down were probably important at the time. However, modern literal interpretations of obviously poetic and metaphorical Biblical prose is ridiculous, not to mention confusion about the many culturally-specific edicts and political polemic (usually disparaging anything the hated Canaanites did).

Whatever, no matter how far researchers probe into reality, there will always be gaps in which deities can reside.

Thank you for the thought, but you're writing the wrong person. Again, I am not interested in opinions.

[Gertie]

Value

Gertie wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2022, 11:23 am

value wrote: ↑October 27th, 2022, 12:37 pm... modern Nature Mysticism is based on the idea that matter is energy which today is confirmed by science and of which Albert Einstein once said:

What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.

Then the question would be: what is energy? Would the ideas of Berkeley apply en be valid in that case?

If the reality is matter is configurations of energy, or fields, or vibrating strings or whatever, and the physical world of matter and solid objects is a construction of our brains, I'm fine with that. Science seems to be heading in very unintuitive directions about the fundamental nature of reality. I have a half baked pet theory that consciousness might be a type of field, a bit like the Higgs Field, which transformationally interacts with other fields in the particular ways manifesting. Who knows.

That's a little different to my understanding of Berkely's position, but Berkely didn't have the knowledge we do today. He could well have been on the right track. I'm happy to go where the boffins take us, however wacky it seems, because we know enough to know we're not very good at intuiting reality beyond our useful 'Darwinian fictions' of solid tables and cause and effect.

God tho, is a different type of concept to me. Tho as a concept God has changed a lot, and is a label you can attach to pretty much anything. My point in the remark you quoted, is that many concepts of God have been usurped as our ability to understand the world grows. The God of the Gaps retreats to the questions we still can't answer. What is the fundamental nature of reality, what is consciousness, what is morality, why does anything exist, etc. This is a million miles away from the conception of the tribal Jewish God Yahweh, who strolled around the Garden of Eden in the Middle East, or that same God who helped his chosen people to destroy competing tribes in land grabs, or allowed them to be occupied or taken into slavery for disobeying his will. Or the Yahweh of Jesus, who was going to set up a new kingdom on earth in Jerusalem. Those tribal concerns aren't how we think of God today, our understanding of the world raises different questions and concerns, and our conceptions of God adapt along. Tho some early sects had a more mystical bent, such as the Gnostics.

The omni God is a place-holder answer to questions like why does anything exist, why does morality exist, but is still a bit like a Super Parent as viewed by a young child, who can do anything and knows everything and is ultimately powerful. And it's psychologically difficult to learn our own parents aren't really like that, that we have to deal with a world where bad **** happens no matter what, there's not always ultimate justice, we can't control or know everything, and we're going to suffer and die. It doesn't seem right.

Abstract and speculative apologetics about a God so beyond our understanding is an inevitably speculative and rarified game in that context imo. I find it pretty distasteful to be honest.
Thank you for the interesting insights.

If matter is energy then it would be at question whether the brain can 'construct' reality. Do you have a substantiation for the idea?

I don't know if matter is energy, I thought energy is more like a property of energy, but I'm scientifically illiterate and googling didn't help much.  Sy Borg might be a better person to ask.   I believe the latest thinking is that the most fundamental nature of reality is fluctuating quantum fields.  In which case that would include brains as well as everything else physical. But conscious experience isn't included in the physicalist model.  It might be a particular type of field/fluctuation which synchronises with physical fields in certain circs like brains, or something else.  We don't know.  What I think we can say is that humans model the world in the form of our conscious experience, rather than that experience being a complete and flawless representation of reality.  So in a sense we 'construct' a world of solid tables, colours, sound, etc, in our heads as a useful model of the underlying reality.  Whatever that is.

Gertie wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2022, 11:23 amRe Schopenhaur, as I understand him -

''Schopenhauer identifies the thing-in-itself—the inner essence of everything—as will: a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge, outside of space and time, and free of all multiplicity. The world as representation is, therefore, the "objectification" of the will.''

I recently viewed an interview of philosophy professor and Schoppenhauer scholar Frederick Coplestone (famous for a BBC interview with Bertrand Russell) by British philosopher Bryan Magee that mentioned that Schoppenhauer's 'Will' should have been named 'energy' and that Schoppenhauer argued that matter is energy.

Coplestone: Schoppenauer uses the world Will, perhaps unfortunately. One might use energy.

... below conscious drive that Schoppenhauer called Will and that perhaps some better name can be given to is force or energy.

Well, energy has a sort of mindless drive, but ''will '' suggests something purposeful and therefore minded to me. If he simply means matter is reducible to energy, he's just describing a view in physics isn't he?

Another quote from the video (22:05):

Bryan Magee: I think it would have been better if Schoppenhauer would have used the world energy because he decided to give the term the name Will to this metaphysical reality and I think that has misled people ever since.

OK, that seems like a physicalist position to me tho? 

Gertie wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2022, 11:23 amWell as soon as someone talks speculatively about what exists outside space and time (this applies to those types of gods too), my first question is How can you possibly know what exists outside space and time?

If such a thing as outside space and time can even be said to exist, we have no access to it. Our inside space and time notions of reason and logic have no relation to outside space and time, so even speculation has no secure grounding. It's another place to speculatively fill in gaps in our understanding without having to be constrained by evidence or reason, physics or metaphysics. It either resonates with you or it doesn't.

Mystics seem to explore a world outside of space and time. Did you ever read anything on mysticism? It describes a plain of infinity that can be accessed using intuitive experience.

My view is that it's unlikely a human subject with a first person specific/bounded perspective can intuitively access 'the infinite', whatever that is.  We can't even access each other's private experience. Sometimes we have feelings of the numinous or transcendence, meditation and drugs can be a short cut to those types of experience.  But stilling the busy-ness of our complex brains, or altering our brain chemistry strikes me as just things brains can do.  It can feel profound, meaningful  and other worldly, and that can be valued without mystical interpretations imo.  But who knows.  I don't rule out panpsychism for example.    But the evidence we have suggests it's particular patterns of matter in motion which gives rise to discrete, specific Subject  'bundles of consciousness', like you and me.

[Count Lucanor]

Usually. Evidence for the inference does remain as evidence.

Again, the same applies for every single rationalized belief, as ridiculously false as it may be. It works for Santa, as has been noticed, the Tooth Fairy, etc. And yeah, those are childish remarks, because there's no other option: the whole god thing is, as Einstein said: an "honourable, but still primitive, legend which (is) nevertheless pretty childish". I would drop the "honourable". A glorified fairy tale.

I do not see the Santa comparison as childish. The Santa concept in itself is childish, but the comparison is exact in the sense that neither Santa nor God can be definitively disproved. There's no point appealing to the limits of physics with either because each operates in another dimension.

While religions are based on myths, the myths themselves are worthy of respect. Before it was possible to write down knowledge, information was passed down the generations orally. The myths would have become ever more outrageous to make them more memorable and, presumably, some occasional artistic licence was applied by the more creative teachers. Not to mention the usual degraded accuracy with oral communication over generations.

The intent was no doubt usually admirable and many ideas passed down were probably important at the time. However, modern literal interpretations of obviously poetic and metaphorical Biblical prose is ridiculous, not to mention confusion about the many culturally-specific edicts and political polemic (usually disparaging anything the hated Canaanites did).

Whatever, no matter how far researchers probe into reality, there will always be gaps in which deities can reside.

Just a couple of days ago I read about a 19th century newspaper ad that went viral on internet. It was from a 18-year old man looking for a wife:
https://aworkstation.com/18-year-old-gu ... y-him-now/

The first time I read it, I couldn't help but smile at the simplicity and naivety of this man's approach to the subject of finding his life companion. It's funny because to our modern world this man looks ridiculous, kind of foolish. All that he found reasonable and valuable means almost nothing to our current mindset, but all it takes is to take a little step back and look at it again: these were pretty honourable, respectable views back then, and the man was not being foolish.

It's just the same with religion.

[Sy Borg]

Usually. Evidence for the inference does remain as evidence.

Again, the same applies for every single rationalized belief, as ridiculously false as it may be. It works for Santa, as has been noticed, the Tooth Fairy, etc. And yeah, those are childish remarks, because there's no other option: the whole god thing is, as Einstein said: an "honourable, but still primitive, legend which (is) nevertheless pretty childish". I would drop the "honourable". A glorified fairy tale.

I do not see the Santa comparison as childish. The Santa concept in itself is childish, but the comparison is exact in the sense that neither Santa nor God can be definitively disproved. There's no point appealing to the limits of physics with either because each operates in another dimension.

While religions are based on myths, the myths themselves are worthy of respect. Before it was possible to write down knowledge, information was passed down the generations orally. The myths would have become ever more outrageous to make them more memorable and, presumably, some occasional artistic licence was applied by the more creative teachers. Not to mention the usual degraded accuracy with oral communication over generations.

The intent was no doubt usually admirable and many ideas passed down were probably important at the time. However, modern literal interpretations of obviously poetic and metaphorical Biblical prose is ridiculous, not to mention confusion about the many culturally-specific edicts and political polemic (usually disparaging anything the hated Canaanites did).

Whatever, no matter how far researchers probe into reality, there will always be gaps in which deities can reside.

Just a couple of days ago I read about a 19th century newspaper ad that went viral on internet. It was from a 18-year old man looking for a wife:
https://aworkstation.com/18-year-old-gu ... y-him-now/

The first time I read it, I couldn't help but smile at the simplicity and naivety of this man's approach to the subject of finding his life companion. It's funny because to our modern world this man looks ridiculous, kind of foolish. All that he found reasonable and valuable means almost nothing to our current mindset, but all it takes is to take a little step back and look at it again: these were pretty honourable, respectable views back then, and the man was not being foolish.

It's just the same with religion.

Exactly. That ad was an interesting peek into people's mindsets in 1865, which are vastly different, never mind the impact of two thousand years.