Relativism VS. Absoulte

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Lady Vixen
Okay most people who believe in the absolute or religion or whatever believe there is an after life something to move onto when you die. Well if there is no absolute...what is there afterwards. And if there is no cause for living, if no one has a purpose to some greater plan not only is that (to me) depressing, but what would be the point of living. I think that everyone needs something to live for everyone has to have some underlying reason, and if what they believe isn't 'real' then what really is the point?


A bit of a rambling post but it is just all so bleak if there is no absolute...whether I belive it or not It's still nice to think I am here for a reason that someone does care about me in this big world.

I tend to believe there is nothing after we die, when you are dead, your dead. I don't think there is a greater plan, to get down to the nitty gritty the pupose of life is to reproduce - to replicate out DNA. I wouldn't worry about the reason for life - go out and live! You don't need some old guy (supposedly) to give you a reason to exist.

[Wayfarer]

To reduce all thought to pure chemistry is deconstructist, at best. That doesn't leave room for the obverse conclusion; that thought constructs the brain. It may influence brain development in early life.

I agree. But if thought itself is produced by brain chemistry, then any affect which it has on brain chemistry is just a ripple effect- the brain changing itself.

You see, there's really no middle ground. Either thought is created by chemistry, or not. If the former, then it is simply a reflection of your brain state, because the if it results from brain chemistry then it is subservient.

Are all thoughts/brain constructs worthless?

I do not believe so.

But consider this. If all thoughts are a result of brain chemistry, then the thought that thoughts are a result of brain chemistry is in itself a result of brain chemistry. So, what grounds do we have to think it's true? It's not a rational decision, but a reflection of what's goin on in your brain.

about environment affecting the brain.

My statement was also about the environment affecting the brain. It's just that I allow for the existance of things that you, as a naturalist, have ruled out beforehand.

And, since the brain reacts the same way to both real and illusory experiences, the only reason you have for labeling supernatural phenomenae to one or the other is because of a prior decision.

Were are these thoughts coming from? That are these thoughts made of?

To build on my previous paragraphs. I do believe in the supernatural. I believe that humans are more than meaty creatures, thet they have souls, etc. And I'm decidedly not one of those people that tries to explain a sould as neural energy or something like that.

You could say that i'm something like a proponent of string theory. I think there's more dimensions to this world than we see, but burned if I can explain anything about them.

I THINK you MAY be slipping into some post modernism here.

the point is that thoughts are "generated" via bio-chem and bio-physics

Yes, that's quite postmodern. But I don't think it's true.

[afro-elf]

a naturalist, have ruled out beforehand

not so. I am a skeptic. I need evidence for. I doubt but it is not the same as utter denial.

[

the only reason you have for labeling supernatural phenomenae to one or the other is because of a prior decision.

nope, it's what the evidence supports



What did you decide to study whenever you get to school?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Identity would be a superset of consciousness and not primarily one thing or another. That would be like saying water is primarily hydrogen. Maybe by count but not by mass. If to components are required then neither is more or less important. Soul? The only soul I know about is James Brown.

No no, you could have conciousness, and if the memory were removed, you would definately not be the same person. Identity is a memory driven function.

Say- didn't you watch total recall?

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Lady Vixen
Okay most people who believe in the absolute or religion or whatever believe there is an after life something to move onto when you die. Well if there is no absolute...what is there afterwards. And if there is no cause for living, if no one has a purpose to some greater plan not only is that (to me) depressing, but what would be the point of living. I think that everyone needs something to live for everyone has to have some underlying reason, and if what they believe isn't 'real' then what really is the point?


A bit of a rambling post but it is just all so bleak if there is no absolute...whether I belive it or not It's still nice to think I am here for a reason that someone does care about me in this big world.

Well now, there's just no proof either way. Certainly there are mechanisms that are suggestive, such as quantum "clones" in the many worlds theory for example, that would allow one to postulate at least the possibility of life after death.

However, that doesn't mean that such a state is absolute. For that matter, YVWH may exist literally, but that doesn't mean that he's an absolute either.

I wnder if it's not time for some semantic discussion on just what exactly constitutes an "absolute".

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart
No no, you could have conciousness, and if the memory were removed, you would definately not be the same person. Identity is a memory driven function.

Say- didn't you watch total recall?

Yes, I did. He should have stopped at the Terminator.

Identity would be not exist without consciousness but not neccessarily the reverse, so that is why I see it as a higher complexity. The same memory would be differently interpreted by different people, if that was even possible. Yes, very basic things such as a red circle would be seen as the same. I would venture that I would interpret the memory of a Nsync concert much differently than a fan. It is impossible to separate the the experience from the conscious process. Different people experience sensory input differently depending on their state of mind.

[Cirdan]

Wayfarer posted

build on my previous paragraphs. I do believe in the supernatural. I believe that humans are more than meaty creatures, thet they have souls, etc. And I'm decidedly not one of those people that tries to explain a sould as neural energy or something like that.

You could say that i'm something like a proponent of string theory. I think there's more dimensions to this world than we see, but burned if I can explain anything about them.

Only you could link souls and string theory.

You see, there's really no middle ground. Either thought is created by chemistry, or not. If the former, then it is simply a reflection of your brain state, because the if it results from brain chemistry then it is subservient.

I don't see this as be two mutually exclusive ideas, just different parts of the same whole. There are people who are controlled by their biochemistry due to organic brain disease and there are people who can moderate thier breathing and heart rate through meditation. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

[BeardofPants]

*Smacks Cirdan on the upside*

Hey, I liked Total Recall!

(And this contributes to the discussion, how?)

[Cirdan]

*sniggers*

BoP watching total recall without slicing and dicing it's glaring flaws. hehe

[BeardofPants]

Hey, can I help it if Arnie has all the solutions to the worlds problems? (Er. Big guns, and bad punning?)

[Wayfarer]

I'm homing to go into comp-sci, aelf.

Total recall... erm, not one of my favorites.

Although, along that vein, I highly reccomend alistair reynold's chasm city if you're interested ina good amnesia/braintwister story.

I am a skeptic. I need evidence for. I doubt but it is not the same as utter denial.

You are correct, of course. But I think this might be a good time to point out that you can't prove that I exist. Solipsism and all that-you recall?

But I'd like to clarify my own position. I, unlike you, am not insistant on evidence. I subscribe to inductive, as well as deductive theory. I look for the system which best explains the facts-as I've said before.

[Wayfarer]

it's what the evidence supports

How so?

Actually, if you will indulge me in a tangent here, Lewis makes an interesting point. If you believe that nothing but nature exists, and that everything is simply part of nature. And if you consider everything to be part of the same system (nature), then you by definition reject anything outside that system (the supernatural).

interesting, eh?

Now then...

I still want to know what evidence you put forth as evidence against the supernatural. If you think you have any. I continue to hold that naturalism and supernaturalism are both metaphysical assumptions.

YVWH may exist literally, but that doesn't mean that he's an absolute either.

Well, that depends. As I've tried to point out, the christian god must by definition be absolute. A god who exists within and is constrained to our universe is different from the Christian God, who contains all universes. A god who was created by other forces is one thing, the Christian God has created everything that exists, etc.

Perhaps a better way to explain it is this: if something is relative, then we must ask relative to what? What is it measured against? Because whatever that standard is becomes, in effect, an absolute. Christianity offers the ultimate standard: perfection. Everything is relative to God's absolute goodness, and likewise his plan for the unverse.

Also, Christainity holds that God is infinite, and hence absolute in that way.

As to the discussion of absolute, I myself was suprised just now to discover that at least one definition of the word closely parallels what I've been saying.

Only you could link souls and string theory.

You are too kind. Thank you.

I don't see this as be two mutually exclusive ideas, just different parts of the same whole. There are people who are controlled by their biochemistry due to organic brain disease and there are people who can moderate thier breathing and heart rate through meditation. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

I did not say mutually exclusive, my friend.

I allow for a two-way influence. Thoughts influence your brain, but your brain also influences your thoughts. Humans are composites: half physical and half spiritual.

But, if you hold that thought is a result of chemistry, then it is nothing but a result of brain chemistry. It really doesn't exist.

I'll give you a small example. If thoughts are a result of brain chemistry, then afro elf's skepticism and my faith are both the result of our brain chemistry, and we are only deluding ourselves by pretending to make rational decisions.

Again I say-if the belief that thought arises from the chemicals in the brain is true, then the belief that thought arises from the chemicals in the brain also comes from your brain chemistry. And hence you have no grounds for claiming it as true.

[Cirdan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only you could link souls and string theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are too kind. Thank you.


Your welcome. I always enjoy your posts whether or not I agree with them.

Things that are absolute:
absolute zero
the effect of gravity proportional to mass
the speed of light
the angstrom

I have a problem when you start mixing and matching things that don't operate in the same way. The idea of absolute has different meaning in the scientific, physical, metaphysical, and just plain common usage. Language isn't math and words don't necessarily "equate". For example...

I did not say mutually exclusive, my friend.

-AND-

You see, there's really no middle ground.

Do the phases "no middle ground" and "mutually exclusive" mean the same thing? Well, probably, but out of context, in language, anything goes, eh?

Does the discussion of self awareness, of thought as it relates to environment, genetics, innate personality and the nature of human consciousness exclude the metaphysical suppositions on the meaning of life? Probably not but they aren't they same thing. For the purpose of discussion were can lay aside the metaphysical since it can occur by any physical mechanism. That belief system allows the assumption that what occurs does so for a purpose and by design. Given that, it lends little in the way of analysis as to the mechanics of the process and only tends to cloud the subject by cutting off discussion for tangents.

A large part of what we do every day is chemical driven. But all of us are aware of oiur consciousness. We has barely scratched the surface of AI and the idea of a computer responding in the unique and unpredictable way the the human machine does is still in the realm of sci-fi. Yet computers give us a glimpse of how a machine could be designed to respond in a directed, random fashion. Does this mean that we can be reduced to a chemical equation? It is simplistic to view the resultant reaction/response in a vacuum. The effects stretch out in space and time in an indefinte and ever diminishing fashion. The idea the memory, or "storage" is a pure representation of what occurs ignores the effects of the entire physical state at that period of time. Perception can be altered by a coincidence or a state of mind.

[BeardofPants]

I don't know if you could consider the speed of light to be absolute, since there are now some scientists who theorise that it has changed over time.

http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewpr.html?pid=8991

[Cirdan]

Interesting article but poorly written. I'd like to find the orginal Nature article. I think much of the new remote sensing data received from today's new powerful telescopes will probably muddle the water for a good while. We are percieving ancient information in a very short period of time without knowing what is now happening in the sources. I would like to know what happens in a theoretical black hole when then the electron charge varies. Maybe both vary proportionally to a absolute product. Some of the Big Bang speculation leaves me a big cold. Things approaching infinite?

[Wayfarer]

I always enjoy your posts whether or not I agree with them.

...

[QUOTE]
Things that are absolute:
absolute zero
the effect of gravity proportional to mass
the speed of light
the angstrom[QUOTE]

Well...

It really does depend on how you define absolute...

Absolute zero is the point at which there is no molecular energy present. It's absolute in the sense that you can't really have less than nothing (can you?)

The effect of gravity is absolute in that it never changes. It's a constant, and in that sense, absolute. Maybe.

The speed of light, it was pointed out to me earlier, can actually be changed. In fact, I recently read that scientists have managed to trap a pulse of light and hold it stationary.

The angstrom is quasi-absolute in that it's the smallest measurement we use. But there could conceivably be something smaller than that which would need a smaller measurement. THe only absolute quantities are zero and infinity.

Do the phases "no middle ground" and "mutually exclusive" mean the same thing? Well, probably, but out of context, in language, anything goes, eh?

Perhaps, perhaps not. But the point i was making is that they have an assymetrical relationship.

I.E. If thought exists on its own, apart from brain chemistry, then it is possible that each influences the other to some degree.

But, if thought does not exist apart from brain chemistry, then it is impossible for thought to influence brain chemistry. After all, it doesn't exist.

Do you understand?

Some of the Big Bang speculation leaves me a big cold

Actually, I find it quite amusing.

For example: The standard model predicts that the big bang produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, which immediately destroyed each other, and left nothing the universe empty of anything but light.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
For example: The standard model predicts that the big bang produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, which immediately destroyed each other, and left nothing the universe empty of anything but light.

I thought that the model was that their was slightly more matter than antimatter at the big bang and so only a small amount was left after everything else was destroyed, so everything we see now in the universe is this small amount.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I thought that the model was that their was slightly more matter than antimatter at the big bang and so only a small amount was left after everything else was destroyed, so everything we see now in the universe is this small amount.

Your right, but there is some problem with the accounting for all the proportions. Some new discoveries are sheading light of this issue but I think it is still a problem to date.

But, if thought does not exist apart from brain chemistry, then it is impossible for thought to influence brain chemistry.

Impossible say ye Wayfarer? Is it one single reaction then? Can't one reaction have some impact on another? Can't agree with this assumption.

[Wayfarer]

What I'm getting at, my bearded friend, is that the idea of thought from brain chemistry severely limits our ability to claim rational thought.

To illustrate: Have you ever played Everbreast? ... Quest. Everquest. Ever played it?

One of the more irritating mistakes the developers made was that, in programming certain npc's, they createdsituations in which the program spits out horrible grammar.

Now, the problem is that, since the grammatical structures are only the result of programming, the game itself has no way of knowing whether it's right or wrong. Which is my entire point.

If my thoughts are simply a result of my brain activity (the way computer output is determined by programming), how do I really know whether my brain chemistry is correct or not? More specifically, how do i know that what I'm thinking has any real value?

I have no problem with the idea of consciousness being linked the the biochemical matrix of the brain. But I do have trouble believing that that same matrix could spontaneously creat consciousness. Computers don't program tehmselves, you know.

Anyway, I'm sure that was pretty oblique. Oh well.

[Blackheart]

<I would venture that I would interpret the memory of a Nsync concert much differently than a fan. It is impossible to separate the the experience from the conscious process. Different people experience sensory input differently depending on their state of mind.>

Of course you would, because your memories would be different.

If your memories are different, your "concious process" is going to be different, because the process stems from the memories of how to process data and experience.

Which means that your identity is going to be different.

You will be wiped and rewritten for your heresy!