Fun Stuff > BAND
Folk Music and the Environment
KvP:
I'm reminded of a group of studies (referenced through B.F. Skinner, I believe. I don't have direct reference) in which electrodes were implanted in test subjects' brains in such a place that when electrical currents were run through the electrode, the subject turned his/her head, involuntarily. The fascinating part was that none of the test subjects reported an involuntary action, indeed, they said they turned their heads on purpose, of their own free will. "I heard a noise" or "my neck was tired and I was stretching" or somesuch. As I said before, I don't truly believe in the self as true cause of action. Human behavior is a complex system, but it is a system.
--- Quote from: zerodrone on 25 Jan 2008, 20:48 ---It amazes me that there are people who actually embrace a worldview which suggests that they only have an illusion of free will and that everything that will ever happen in their life is inevitable.
--- End quote ---
Why not? My conscious awareness that the decisions I'm going to be making are determined by situational factors doesn't really affect how I feel about those decisions. I don't enjoy my life any less. Besides, we (should) already admit that certain people don't have control over themselves. The mentally ill, for instance, or drug addicts. There are obviously factors that compromise their will, and it would be both grotesque and ignorant to insist that a clinically depressed person just isn't trying hard enough to change their attitude, or that all a smack addict suffers from is a lack of personal fortitude and responsibility. Are they really free? Are they less free than we are? Or are the determining factors of their behavior just more obvious than usual? Will and determinism aren't necessarily incompatible as it is. After all, the best thing Bowie did to kick heroin was up and move to an environment that didn't enable it. Unfortunately for him, that city was Berlin, which came with its own vices.
--- Quote from: zerodrone on 25 Jan 2008, 20:48 ---Who says God is made of molecules? Are thoughts made of molecules? Are choices? Did you decide to call me an idiot, or did you call me an idiot because of an inexorable series of chemical reactions in your brain?
--- End quote ---
Are you making a "mental material" argument here, or are you being sardonic? I don't believe that when I think of my perfect island getaway, that island actually exists somewhere in reality. That perfect island getaway is in some way my brain state at the time of thought. It's not a full-fledged theory, it has its problems, but it's a better explanation than thought occupying some extradimensional space.
Regarding the review of The God Delusion, it has a number of strong points regarding the backwardness of Dawkins' crusade, and I've pondered the quickness of young atheists to literally scapegoat religion as the ipso facto origin of all worldly ills myself. But somehow, the academic objections to the book and the movement it represents seem sort of beside the point. Out here in WASP country there are precious few people who appreciate the finer points of theology. All the talk of what christianity really is is lost on all the people who will tell you that yes, Jesus did actually rise from the dead and yes, the Earth is 6,000 years old and yes, every word of Revelations will come to pass (do serious theologians not believe in Revelations?). I'd blame Dawkins for casting too broad a net, and allowing his rhetoric to cover non-protestants.
But having seen Daniel Dennett speak, he went at it less from an angry scientists' perspective and more of a philosopher's perspective, although the main focus of his lecture was the study of religion as meme. As any phi 101 student can tell you (and have you noticed how we're slowly cycling through all sorts of phi 101 topics?) any philosophy that prominently includes God is bound to be shittier than usual. Dennett certainly wasn't gung-ho about anything, and it was mighty disappointing that the Q&A after the lecture was mostly taken up by Dennett repeating his logic to clergy who angrily demanded for him to admit that God existed.
Johnny C:
--- Quote from: Kid van Pervert on 26 Jan 2008, 01:26 ---I don't believe that when I think of my perfect island getaway, that island actually exists somewhere in reality. That perfect island getaway is in some way my brain state at the time of thought.
--- End quote ---
Maybe the exact island you're picturing doesn't exist but that doesn't rule out the existence of an island getaway.
--- Quote from: Kid van Pervert on 26 Jan 2008, 01:26 ---Out here in WASP country there are precious few people who appreciate the finer points of theology. All the talk of what christianity really is is lost on all the people who will tell you that yes, Jesus did actually rise from the dead and yes, the Earth is 6,000 years old and yes, every word of Revelations will come to pass (do serious theologians not believe in Revelations?).
--- End quote ---
Precious few people appreciate the finer points of democracy, but that doesn't invalidate it. If Dawkins' message was "think seriously about whether or not you actually believe in your religion" and he directed it at those people, that would be reasonable. It's not "beside the point" to criticize him for having too broad a message that's too off-target. Plus there are other reasons Dawkins' argument isn't particularly valid, which have been covered up in the thread.
(A lot of people think Revelations is code, hey? Well, "code" isn't exactly the right word, but it gets the idea across. It's purportedly a message to Christians to continue to have conviction in their beliefs in the teachings of Christ, even in the face of great danger.)
--- Quote from: Kid van Pervert on 26 Jan 2008, 01:26 ---As any phi 101 student can tell you (and have you noticed how we're slowly cycling through all sorts of phi 101 topics?) any philosophy that prominently includes God is bound to be shittier than usual.
--- End quote ---
Any phi 101 student I've ever met is either full of himself, full of crap or bursting over with both. Not sure what this has to do with any part of your argument other than suggesting that a select group of people taking a particular area of study that for the past few centuries has been examining the notion of God and finding it lacking will not be receptive to arguments relating to God. I guess you're right on the money there.
The notion of a religion as a meme is a fascinating one, but does it account for individuals having separate beliefs within the same belief structure? My mother and I are both Catholic but we have different views on the theology and both of us certainly have different views from our priest, who also has different views from the bishop. At its core the beliefs are similar but in practice they are wildly different from one another, except that we all believe a dude was nailed to a tree for saying some stuff people didn't like and then he came back later.
ampersandwitch:
--- Quote from: Kid van Pervert on 26 Jan 2008, 01:26 ---phi 101
--- End quote ---
My phi101 class here at school was a miserable excretion of the educational system. It involved a one-on-one debate between my professor and a kid who was attempting to dismantle John Locke's primary and secondary qualities using the example of a zebra (the fact that it occurred in nature and was multicolored apparently disproved the fact that its two colors in the human eye are ultimately perception and don't really exist otherwise), and the debate for or against god consisted of a girl actually citing the moral pioneerings of Final Destination as an example of god's plan for each and every one of us.
Classes like this are mostly why I'm transferring.
I wish my phi101 class was like this thread at all.
Jackie Blue:
--- Quote from: Kid van Pervert on 26 Jan 2008, 01:26 ---Why not? My conscious awareness that the decisions I'm going to be making are determined by situational factors doesn't really affect how I feel about those decisions.
--- End quote ---
The point is that if you acknowledge that thought is strictly a physical phenomenon, you never make decisions at all. You seem to be stuck in a sort of loop whereby you claim that one can make decisions, but have said nothing about what scientific evidence leads you to believe that our brains are capable of deciding which neurons to fire. If the firing of a neuron is subject to chemical law, then so is the firing of the neuron which causes you to believe you're choosing to fire another neuron. At some point you have to pony up an explanation of what is allowing you to "choose" anything at all, or admit that factoring in everything about the Universe - a finite set of data - there will always only be one outcome because atoms and molecules behave according to entirely predictable laws which do not include "morality" or "choice" or "freedom".
--- Quote ---or that all a smack addict suffers from is a lack of personal fortitude and responsibility
--- End quote ---
The body's dependance on a chemical is part of the interaction, sure. This is entirely beside the point. How can someone be held responsible for something they have no control over?
--- Quote ---Will and determinism aren't necessarily incompatible as it is. After all, the best thing Bowie did to kick heroin was up and move to an environment that didn't enable it.
--- End quote ---
Sure. Now tell me what part of him enabled him to make that "choice". Show me the part of the brain that our minds can control, rather than the current scientific evidence which is that our brains control our minds.
calenlass:
Supersheep, if this were my thread, you would have won it almost 2 pages ago.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version