|
Post by rational on Apr 25, 2016 21:59:56 GMT -5
There is no proof that can be offered on physical terms. By definition, the creative perogative defies our ability to specify, define, and confine. Of course there is no proof. The creative prerogative, assuming that is what you meant to type, makes sure of and guarantees the exercise of freedom, the same creative spirit does not let freedom be carried away into a wild chase after phantasmagoric possibilities of fancy or fall into the accidentalness of arbitrariness. It remains within the open and not yet absolutely unrestrained boundaries of the human. Can you see how what you wrote and what Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka put in the Phenomenology of Life as the Starting Point of Philosophy use a lot of big words but really doesn't make a lot of sense because you are trying to define something that doesn't exist and, as you say, cannot be defined? There is some interesting research being done where the creation of thoughts is made visible by radioactive tagging and they can be seen forming.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 25, 2016 23:18:37 GMT -5
Huh?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 26, 2016 1:53:43 GMT -5
WOW! Lee is speechless? How could that ever happen?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 26, 2016 9:11:34 GMT -5
I know. That was my response after reading what you wrote. I see others asked for a translation. I just added something Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka had written about the subject. It too made little sense to me but I thought you might know what she meant. However, visualizing thoughts/memories as they are created in the brain is something that has been done.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 26, 2016 17:45:10 GMT -5
It is evil for people to assume ownership of conception simply because it is within their ability to observe it, be it of thoughts or of fetuses. Are we creators of life or mere stewards?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 26, 2016 21:53:39 GMT -5
It is evil for people to assume ownership of conception simply because it is within their ability to observe it, be it of thoughts or of fetuses. Are we creators of life or mere stewards? It is not because it can be observed that people take ownership for their creations. It is because they created the result whether that is a story, music, graphic art, a computer program, a new physical mechanical system, etc. Companies develop lifeforms that are used to produce drug components and they own those lifeforms. Who do you propose should own creations, whatever form they take?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 26, 2016 23:15:13 GMT -5
There are creations and there is creation. Every moral conflict man has known arose from their confusion
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2016 2:13:42 GMT -5
There are creations and there is creation. Every moral conflict man has known arose from their confusion And have you emerged sufficiently to have obtained some of your own?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2016 4:10:41 GMT -5
There is proof beyond doubt that I Am not a member of this club. What on earth are you folks going on about? I am like a member of the lost tribe of Isreal on this one. Cheese man !!!!!!! Please come back down to earth with us earthlins.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 27, 2016 7:26:43 GMT -5
There is proof beyond doubt that I Am not a member of this club. What on earth are you folks going on about? I am like a member of the lost tribe of Isreal on this one. Cheese man !!!!!!! Please come back down to earth with us earthlins. You need to pull out your thesaurus, redefine some common words, incorporate them into what almost looks like a sentence. For example, A sentence like this: It is evil for people to assume ownership of conception simply because it is within their ability to observe it, be it of thoughts or of fetuses. Are we creators of life or mere stewards? Probably could be distilled to a sentence saying: "Just because a couple can create a zygote they do not own it and do not have the right to terminate a pregnancy." Of course, I just created that thought but I am not sure I have ownership and may be in violation of some law for having posted it without permission. And now I am afraid to remove it since that would require me to assume ownership. If I disappear it will mean that the thought-police have arrived and the prefrontal leukotomy has been completed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2016 8:41:44 GMT -5
There is proof beyond doubt that I Am not a member of this club. What on earth are you folks going on about? I am like a member of the lost tribe of Isreal on this one. Cheese man !!!!!!! Please come back down to earth with us earthlins. You need to pull out your thesaurus, redefine some common words, incorporate them into what almost looks like a sentence. For example, A sentence like this: It is evil for people to assume ownership of conception simply because it is within their ability to observe it, be it of thoughts or of fetuses. Are we creators of life or mere stewards? Probably could be distilled to a sentence saying: "Just because a couple can create a zygote they do not own it and do not have the right to terminate a pregnancy." Of course, I just created that thought but I am not sure I have ownership and may be in violation of some law for having posted it without permission. And now I am afraid to remove it since that would require me to assume ownership. If I disappear it will mean that the thought-police have arrived and the prefrontal leukotomy has been completed. Ok, I will get my seventeen months old grandaughter to take me throught this one and explain to me, she is very clever.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 27, 2016 23:50:47 GMT -5
Creation and Physicalism are not equal worldviews. From a doctrine of creation we might conclude at some level that all men and women are created equal. We might conceive of notions like community property (taken in a generic sense, not in the marital sense per se). In terms of a worldview physicalism lacks such richness.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 28, 2016 0:26:10 GMT -5
You need to pull out your thesaurus, redefine some common words, incorporate them into what almost looks like a sentence. For example, A sentence like this: It is evil for people to assume ownership of conception simply because it is within their ability to observe it, be it of thoughts or of fetuses. Are we creators of life or mere stewards? Probably could be distilled to a sentence saying: "Just because a couple can create a zygote they do not own it and do not have the right to terminate a pregnancy." Of course, I just created that thought but I am not sure I have ownership and may be in violation of some law for having posted it without permission. And now I am afraid to remove it since that would require me to assume ownership. If I disappear it will mean that the thought-police have arrived and the prefrontal leukotomy has been completed. Ok, I will get my seventeen months old grandaughter to take me throught this one and explain to me, she is very clever. Leukotomy? leukotomy?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 28, 2016 0:35:40 GMT -5
Creation and Physicalism are not equal worldviews. I have to agree with you here. One is an entity that has been formed and the other is a philosophy.You might but you could be proved to be wrong in so many areas. Perhaps what you mean is that they should be treated equally. Or you could even create a set of statutes that would provide the framework.I think the main difference is that physicalism is based on reality and whatever 'creation' is, there is no need to verify any of the claims regarding what it represents. A electro-bio-chemical reaction creating and storing these creations form the building blocks with which you build your worldview, a worldview that exists only because of the richness of the actions/reactions found in your cells. You can only speak of the possible imagined richness of your worldview because of the actual richness that make it possible.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 28, 2016 0:59:02 GMT -5
Yes, leukotomy. You could argue that the 'prefrontal' was redundant but it does make what was going on clear. It resulted from a moment of atavism! I worked in an institution where prefrontal leukotomies were done through the mid-1950s. The tools for doing a transorbital lobotomy were on display in one of the offices.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2016 1:21:50 GMT -5
You need to pull out your thesaurus, redefine some common words, incorporate them into what almost looks like a sentence. For example, A sentence like this: It is evil for people to assume ownership of conception simply because it is within their ability to observe it, be it of thoughts or of fetuses. Are we creators of life or mere stewards? Probably could be distilled to a sentence saying: "Just because a couple can create a zygote they do not own it and do not have the right to terminate a pregnancy." Of course, I just created that thought but I am not sure I have ownership and may be in violation of some law for having posted it without permission. And now I am afraid to remove it since that would require me to assume ownership. If I disappear it will mean that the thought-police have arrived and the prefrontal leukotomy has been completed. Ok, I will get my seventeen months old grandaughter to take me throught this one and explain to me, she is very clever. If she can sort through that stuff, I'm not sure it's "cleverness", necessarily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 4:35:53 GMT -5
Ok, I will get my seventeen months old grandaughter to take me throught this one and explain to me, she is very clever. Leukotomy? leukotomy? Leukotomy is a horror, a murderous reduction of a human being to an automation, it is like a decorticated pigeon on a hot plate, lifting one foot and putting it down and raising the other repeatedly, endlessly. well that is enought to stress you out so much it might bring on its sister- the other horror, leukemia.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 28, 2016 7:36:37 GMT -5
Leukotomy is a horror, a murderous reduction of a human being to an automation, it is like a decorticated pigeon on a hot plate, lifting one foot and putting it down and raising the other repeatedly, endlessly. well that is enought to stress you out so much it might bring on its sister- the other horror, leukemia. ::) For all of the horror, before the advent of psychotropic drugs in some cases it was a better solution than full-time restraints. The problem was that no one was sure for which case it would be effective.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 28, 2016 13:28:29 GMT -5
I googled "arguments against the worldview of physicalism" and read a couple articles. In the view of many "experts" physicalism cannot offer an explanation for consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 28, 2016 13:31:16 GMT -5
Creation and Physicalism are not equal worldviews. I have to agree with you here. One is an entity that has been formed and the other is a philosophy.You might but you could be proved to be wrong in so many areas. Perhaps what you mean is that they should be treated equally. Or you could even create a set of statutes that would provide the framework.I think the main difference is that physicalism is based on reality and whatever 'creation' is, there is no need to verify any of the claims regarding what it represents. A electro-bio-chemical reaction creating and storing these creations form the building blocks with which you build your worldview, a worldview that exists only because of the richness of the actions/reactions found in your cells. You can only speak of the possible imagined richness of your worldview because of the actual richness that make it possible. We've been wonderfully made. What can we do to give thanks?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2016 19:28:38 GMT -5
I googled "arguments against the worldview of physicalism" and read a couple articles. In the view of many "experts" physicalism cannot offer an explanation for consciousness. What type pf specialist did you read?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2016 19:29:35 GMT -5
I have to agree with you here. One is an entity that has been formed and the other is a philosophy.You might but you could be proved to be wrong in so many areas. Perhaps what you mean is that they should be treated equally. Or you could even create a set of statutes that would provide the framework.I think the main difference is that physicalism is based on reality and whatever 'creation' is, there is no need to verify any of the claims regarding what it represents. A electro-bio-chemical reaction creating and storing these creations form the building blocks with which you build your worldview, a worldview that exists only because of the richness of the actions/reactions found in your cells. You can only speak of the possible imagined richness of your worldview because of the actual richness that make it possible. We've been wonderfully made. What can we do to give thanks? Keep taking our pills on schedule.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 28, 2016 19:46:16 GMT -5
I have to agree with you here. One is an entity that has been formed and the other is a philosophy.You might but you could be proved to be wrong in so many areas. Perhaps what you mean is that they should be treated equally. Or you could even create a set of statutes that would provide the framework.I think the main difference is that physicalism is based on reality and whatever 'creation' is, there is no need to verify any of the claims regarding what it represents. A electro-bio-chemical reaction creating and storing these creations form the building blocks with which you build your worldview, a worldview that exists only because of the richness of the actions/reactions found in your cells. You can only speak of the possible imagined richness of your worldview because of the actual richness that make it possible. We've been wonderfully made. What can we do to give thanks? ehum.. I wonder if you will be giving thanks when you have a difficult time peeing because you were so wonderfully made that your urethra which goes through your prostate gland often enlarges in older men causing stricture on the urethra.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 28, 2016 20:23:27 GMT -5
I googled "arguments against the worldview of physicalism" and read a couple articles. In the view of many "experts" physicalism cannot offer an explanation for consciousness. I believe it is safe to assume that in your post that "experts" = "theists". Should I google and get a list of 'experts' that can refute your claim? You group a number of activities into 'consciousness'. These things are not entities in themselves but activities that the brain does. Consider 'digestion'. It is not an entity. It is something that the stomach/intestines do. You cannot pick up digestion nor thinking and put it in a box. But you can see the various organs preforming these tasks.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 28, 2016 20:41:00 GMT -5
We've been wonderfully made. What can we do to give thanks? You can give thanks to whomever you wish. We are not all that wonderfully made. Have you seen someone die of ALS? Have you had to deal with a loved one as the slowly slip into the darkness of Alzheimer's disease? Watched cancers destroy a person's body? I feel fortunate that I do not have to resolve the cognitive dissonance of believing there was some entity that needed to be thanked for being 'wonderfully made' while believing that the same entity was responsible for destroying the mind of someone I cared for. Things happen for a reason and the best defense is determining how and why they happen and work towards a solution. Retreating to the familiar "It's god will" and labeling it as some transcendent happening that cannot be understood as a physical phenomenon solves nothing and is equivalent to taking giant steps backwards.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 28, 2016 20:42:00 GMT -5
We've been wonderfully made. What can we do to give thanks? ehum.. I wonder if you will be giving thanks when you have a difficult time peeing because you were so wonderfully made that your urethra which goes through your prostate gland often enlarges in older men causing stricture on the urethra.One way people express gratitude is by moderating their response to adversity for a greater good. In your view of physicalism is this just the brain replicating/repackaging itself to secure the greatest odds for its survival? Or do we exist in relationship to a greater good. Something ontologically greater?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 28, 2016 20:49:02 GMT -5
I googled "arguments against the worldview of physicalism" and read a couple articles. In the view of many "experts" physicalism cannot offer an explanation for consciousness. I believe it is safe to assume that in your post that "experts" = "theists". Should I google and get a list of 'experts' that can refute your claim? You group a number of activities into 'consciousness'. These things are not entities in themselves but activities that the brain does. Consider 'digestion'. It is not an entity. It is something that the stomach/intestines do. You cannot pick up digestion nor thinking and put it in a box. But you can see the various organs preforming these tasks. Pain is a state of mind but not only so. The reality of experiencing pain is an ontologically distinct proposition
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 28, 2016 20:51:06 GMT -5
I googled "arguments against the worldview of physicalism" and read a couple articles. In the view of many "experts" physicalism cannot offer an explanation for consciousness. What type pf specialist did you read? Honors project at Bowling Green State University and a philosophy professor at Bristol University, England.
|
|