Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

[Guisslapp]

Probably not too far off (I assume you mean the "Turing test"). You are the one thinking inside the box. Neural networks and bayesian networks are very much outside the box.

I have created a new thread for this issue.

http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39403

[johnnylightnin]

Your arrogance has turned me off from posting for a while. Your assertion that material didn't have to be put into motion is a faith issue as well. I disagree. God, being pure act, is the prime mover. He is existence (however, that's not all he is).

Clearly, you two are more versed in this area than I am. I honestly don't have time to delve into the philosophy to give you a worthy rebuttle (that you wouldn't accept because it doesn't fall in line with your philosophy). But, just because I (a first year grad student) can't offer a rebuttle at this time, doesn't mean that there isn't a rebuttle. Of course, if I could give you the rebuttle, you would gloss over the things you don't agree with (see drumlogic) much the same as Rand did with Aristotle's prime mover argument.

Further, your argument against the prime mover (that things didn't have to be put into motion) is in stark contrast to my sensory perception...more so than the existence of God.

[randerizer]

Your arrogance has turned me off from posting for a while. Your assertion that material didn't have to be put into motion is a faith issue as well. I disagree. God, being pure act, is the prime mover. He is existence (however, that's not all he is).

No, there's no faith involved. I'm not saying it had to be that way, I'm saying it's an arbitrary choice to state that the starting point of existence is a state of rest. So, I presented evidence on BOTH sides. If it is in a state of rest, I explained that there is also no valid reason why a prime mover is necessary to initiate motion, as multiple objects are perfectly capable of initiating motion in each other. Frankly, I think the whole discussion of the origin of existence is flawed, I'm just using YOUR concept of the origin of existence to show you why God is still not necessary.

How can anything be any more than existence? Are you suggesting that God is existence and nothingness? Keep in mind, consciousness exists. What is nonexistent?

Clearly, you two are more versed in this area than I am. I honestly don't have time to delve into the philosophy to give you a worthy rebuttle (that you wouldn't accept because it doesn't fall in line with your philosophy). But, just because I (a first year grad student) can't offer a rebuttle at this time, doesn't mean that there isn't a rebuttle. Of course, if I could give you the rebuttle, you would gloss over the things you don't agree with (see drumlogic) much the same as Rand did with Aristotle's prime mover argument.

There is no rebuttal.

FWIW, Rand never really addressed the prime mover, other than to say that consciousness can not exist before existence (the primacy of existence). The arguments we are giving are OUR ideas. Just so happens that there is support for our ideas in the work of others (Newton, Galileo, for example).

Further, your argument against the prime mover (that things didn't have to be put into motion) is in stark contrast to my sensory perception...more so than the existence of God.

Well, you are right in a sense here. But that's because your direct experience is similar to Aristotle. For example, you know that if you roll an object, it will inevitably stop. But that's not because objects inherently want to be at rest, it's because the inertia of the object is being acted on by an outside force (friction). Now, slide the same object on a low friction surface, and you'll observe that it goes much further. Toss an object in outer space, it will go still further. You are misinterpreting what we are saying with regard to the accumulation of knowledge. It all STARTS with sensory perception. From there, the human mind is capable of REASON. So you can take the fact that the object you are rolling stops, and you can choose to examine WHY it stops. Does a ball slide farther than a brick? Why? By using your reasoning, you're perfectly capable of deducing what it is (although perhaps not precisely) that causes things to stop, and to suggest ways to keep things moving for longer without having to apply more force.

Give you an example - without COUNTING, how many I's do you see? II. Two, right (or maybe not). Now, how many do you see? IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. Our ability to perceive that number of I's into information we can use is not there without also establishing higher cognitive skills to interpret our perceptions, devise methods to organize our perceptions (like counting or defining and organizing higher concepts), etc.

[Guisslapp]

FWIW, Rand never really addressed the prime mover, other than to say that consciousness can not exist before existence (the primacy of existence). The arguments we are giving are OUR ideas. Just so happens that there is support for our ideas in the work of others (Newton, Galileo, for example).

This is true, I am not citing Rand directly in response to the prime mover argument. I am just describing things that anyone would recognize if they viewed the world from an objective viewpoint.

[Guisslapp]

I honestly don't have time to delve into the philosophy to give you a worthy rebuttle (that you wouldn't accept because it doesn't fall in line with your philosophy).

FWIW, I don't have a problem admitting when I am wrong. I have held incorrect beliefs in the past and tossed them when I realized they were wrong.

[randerizer]

Clearly, you two are more versed in this area than I am.

Well, this might be true, but only because we know how to use logic and reason, and we work to clear our minds of junk that doesn't have a base.

I assess that your judgement is clouded by an emotional tie to your faith. As such, it is inherently more difficult to make a well-reasoned argument on the issue, because you've already abandoned reason on the issue... :icon_wink:

And speaking of drumlogic (since you seem to suggest that he is the champion of Christian logic on this board), when do you think he's going to get around to answer the valid issues I and Guisslap have posed against the necessity of the prime mover?

Further, your argument against the prime mover (that things didn't have to be put into motion) is in stark contrast to my sensory perception...more so than the existence of God.

So you're telling me that you've perceived the creation of existence?
You've never observed that 2 magnets near each other can exhibit attractive or repulsive magnetic force, depending on the magnetization?

It's not in contrast with your perception... you are just choosing to evade reason, as I've certainly given examples that would make sense to anyone using their senses and reason as their tools for knowledge and understanding.

[randerizer]

What was offensive with me saying that Plato was way off base? You do understand that Aristotle basically disproved almost everything Plato said, right?

Any philosophy derived from a platonic school of thought is wrong, that's all there is to it. Metaphysically, epistemologically, etc.

Have you actually read Plato?

[johnnylightnin]

I apologize for losing my temper with this debate. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 says, "The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will."

I violated the message of this scripture and I am sorry for that. I've taken steps to try and prevent it. Because of those steps, I'll no longer be responding to either of you directly as I won't be able to see what you've written. I'm going to post a summary of the Thomistic Metaphysical "proof" of the existence of God. This is what I believe put much more clearly than I could put it. I hope to return to this debate when I can approach it as Christ would. I'm not at that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism...ic_Metaphysics

[Guisslapp]

I've taken steps to try and prevent it. Because of those steps, I'll no longer be responding to either of you directly as I won't be able to see what you've written.

I am guessing this means that means that you have selected the "ignore" function for posts made by me and Randy. That is your choice. The truth is that you would be required to evade our posts anyway because it is contrary to what your faith holds. Thomas Aquinas's "proof" falls apart very easily once you recognize the assumption he made. I suspect it is your faith that prevents you from recognizing it yourself.

[Guisslapp]

The First Way (Aquinas)

(Prime Mover) "It is clear that there are in this world things which are moved. Now, every object which is moved receives that movement from another. If the motor is itself moved, there must be another motor moving it, and after that yet another, and so on. But it is impossible to go on indefinitely, for then there would be no first motor at all, and consequently no movement" ("Contra Gentiles," ii. 33). This proof, like much of Thomas Aquinas's thought, is taken from Aristotle, whose "unmoved mover" forms the first recorded example of the cosmological argument for God's existence.

These are the problems:

1) the argument assumes that the starting point is a state of rest. There is no basis for that assumption, in which case, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that moving objects could initiate movements in other objects via collisions. Consider Newton's first law for a justification. And I should point out that both Newton and Galileo said it right when they identified the Aristotilean flaw in assuming a state of rest as a starting point.

2) the argument assumes stationary objects can't move other stationary objects. This fails the gravitational/magnetism tests. Objects can exert forces (gravitational, magnetic) on other objects even when not in direct contact or when in a fixed position. Therefore, even if you assume that the starting point of existence is a state of rest, there is no need for a higher power to explain the movements you want to explain. As such, you ONLY need 2 entities to have motion - both entities can act on each other without needing a third entity to act on one of them.

3) The laws of conservation of mass/energy tells us that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, no creation of existence (which includes mass and energy)

4) It would be philosophically impossible for a consciousness to precede existence. A consciousness must be aware of SOMETHING - and it cannot only be aware of itself. For a consciousness to be aware of itself it must first recongize some object of existence, then it can recognize its "recognition" of the object (thus recognizing its consciousness).

5) To create existence one must have knowledge of the objects one is creating. If existence did not precede consciousness, one would not have knowledge of anything to create existence with.

6) The prime mover argument reverses the law of causality on its head. Entities cause actions, not all entities are caused by actions. Thus some entities may be eternal.

7) Assuming you could overcome these assumptions, it is still arbitrary to say that a deity was necessary to enact the first movement.

[saltydawg]

Also, please address my critique of the assumption of "creation." They are enumerated and reproduced below for your convenience.

Just because something exists, doesn't mean that it was "created." Man and nature can shape materials to produce new objects of existence. But there is no reason that existence itself had to be created. In fact there are reasons that it couldn't have been.

(1) The laws of conservation of mass/energy tells us that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, no creation of existence (which includes mass and energy)
(2) It would be philosophically impossible for a consciousness to precede existence. A consciousness must be aware of SOMETHING - and it cannot only be aware of itself. For a consciousness to be aware of itself it must first recongize some object of existence, then it can recognize its "recognition" of the object (thus recognizing its consciousness).
(3) To create existence one must have knowledge of the objects one is creating. If existence did not precede consciousness, one would not have knowledge of anything to create existence with.
(4) Assuming that it would be possible to overcome the aforementioned problems with the creation of existence, it would still be arbitrary, at best, to state that some deity created existence.

Prior to the Big Bang, there was no existence, i.e., no space, time. matter or energy.
What caused the Big Bang is unknown. Consequently, there could be a Prime Mover that exists in a different dimension from us. The universe is a strange place so to think that we can see or know all of the story is unreasonable.

What we see in our observable space is referred to as the Hubble sphere. of which there are an infinite number.

So we do know that existence was created at the moment of the Big Bang. Before that there were no laws of conservation of mass/energy.

[Guisslapp]

Prior to the Big Bang, there was no existence, i.e., no space, time. matter or energy.
What caused the Big Bang is unknown. Consequently, there could be a Prime Mover that exists in a different dimension from us. The universe is a strange place so to think that we can see or know all of the story is unreasonable.

What we see in our observable space is referred to as the Hubble sphere. of which there are an infinite number.

So we do know that existence was created at the moment of the Big Bang. Before that there were no laws of conservation of mass/energy.

Why do I get the feeling that you are talking completely out your ass again?

Big Bang theorists predict that the universe began as a gravitational singularity (infinite density) occupying a single point. Density would require mass.

No one has said that we can see or know "all of the story." But if you can't sense it, you can't know it.

[Dirtydawg]

No one has said that we can see or know "all of the story." But if you can't sense it, you can't know it.

I have a question if you won't mind answering it for me. I know this belongs in the knowledge thread, and in fact may have been addressed in it, and I may have missed the explanation when I read through it, but how does one account for the senses? In other words, let's say I never had an experience with a tiger. I have no perception to base what it is or that it's dangerous, so I don't know that I'm supposed to be afraid of it. Yet, after quickly becoming acquainted with it, I realize that I'm supposed to fear these things. Now, I've experienced the emotion of fear. I realize that it could be labeled anything else other than fear, but we call it fear. I understand that my observation and perception and senses now have given me the knowledge that I must experience fear when encountering tigers, but what gives us the knowledge of the fear initially? In other words, how is that we "knew" that this sensation was appropriate when in danger instead of say, elation, or love?

[Guisslapp]

I have a question if you won't mind answering it for me. I know this belongs in the knowledge thread, and in fact may have been addressed in it, and I may have missed the explanation when I read through it, but how does one account for the senses? In other words, let's say I never had an experience with a tiger. I have no perception to base what it is or that it's dangerous, so I don't know that I'm supposed to be afraid of it. Yet, after quickly becoming acquainted with it, I realize that I'm supposed to fear these things. Now, I've experienced the emotion of fear. I realize that it could be labeled anything else other than fear, but we call it fear. I understand that my observation and perception and senses now have given me the knowledge that I must experience fear when encountering tigers, but what gives us the knowledge of the fear initially? In other words, how is that we "knew" that this sensation was appropriate when in danger instead of say, elation, or love?

Deductive reasoning activating the sympathetic nervous system's fight or flight response probably. I doubt you would have this response if you did not know pain and/or death. Assuming you had absolutely no knowledge of the potential dangers of wild animals and the tiger did not act in any way to prompt fear (growl, posture, show its teeth), then you may not actually fear it. I suspect noticing its size alone would make you realize that you could be a meal and provoke the response. You probably wouldn't fear the poison dart frog, but it could kill you if the toxins of its skin get into your system.

[Dirtydawg]

Deductive reasoning activating the sympathetic nervous system's fight or flight response probably. I doubt you would have this response if you did not know pain and/or death. Assuming you had absolutely no knowledge of the potential dangers of wild animals and the tiger did not act in any way to prompt fear (growl, posture, show its teeth), then you may not actually fear it. I suspect noticing its size alone would make you realize that you could be a meal and provoke the response. You probably wouldn't fear the poison dart frog, but it could kill you if the toxins of its skin get into your system.

I don't think you're understanding my question. How do we know that that's the response to have? Why would we have a fight or flight response if we've never had the need for it because we've never perceived the need for it? In other words, how do we have the fear to begin with to apply to that situation? How is it that we feel fear in response to possible pain/ or death and not elation? How do we have any emotion to apply to any situation? Let me see if I can give different example. Let's say you're married. You come home one day to find your wife having sex with Randerizer. Let's assume you've never had a girlfriend or any other cheat on you. You will have some rather serious emotional struggles going on. Where do those emotions come from if you've never had that experience and those perceptions before? How do you instinctively know that that is how you are supposed to feel when your best friend is balls deep in your wife?