I didn’t articulate an all encompassing model. I’m not trying to ‘win’ in the way you are. For me the process is about learning something not about smiting my foes.
When making fun of people is my primary consideration, I head to the Pit, not Great Debates.
I participate in these discussions rarely because usually the posts are 2-1 atheists telling people that they are idiots for believing in spirituality. For the most part atheists have no place in these discussions and should keep their opinions to themselves, but as is common around these parts, there are several posts to the effect of, “People who don’t want to think/are idiots/can’t cope with life…” It’s an uphill battle to get a cohesive argument. And in the case of the people who are at least TRYING to be sincere they can’t help themselves but to insert jibes with profanity referring insultingly not to the person they are speaking to directly, but to a group that includes them.
So you win, consider me successfully shouted down. That’s what you were going for right?
No. If I wanted to shout you down, I would have shouted you down (and got rebuked by tomndebb for doing it). What I did was beg you to support your position. I have desperately tried to get you to engage in reasoned debate. I’ve tried to encourage you to put together and present a cohesive argument, and to repair it or reject it if it fails to stand up to reasonable criticism.
If you leave, as you’ve threatened to, that is no “victory”, it’s just an end. (There can never be “victory” unless somebody changes their position on something, which has a snowball’s chance in hell of happening.) Fortunately for me I’m not here for “victory” - I’m here for the opportunity to flex my skills at articulating arguments in the pursuit of correctness. So yes, you can deny me that by leaving. As you’ve deduced, you’ll win!
(Though as a real possible upside, the hijack will end. This thread is supposed to be about definitions, after all.)
It’s funny how it’s considered a hijack to actually try and argue your position.
I think the fact that this thread is dominated by atheists and that the people who actually believe in spirituality haven’t really been posting here should be pretty indicative of the way things go down on the straight dope.
In short discussions of spiritual topics are not welcome here.
But how do we utilize that silicon and quantum law? It is within a three dimensional earthbound matrix. The hardware and software are Maia driven, what is an extraplanetary computer like? Be useful for a mission to mars.
Yes of course. It wouldn’t make sense to set them up as being interdependent. Handle processing and then send packets in large whole chunks. Kind of like how neurons have different transmission speeds.
mswas, if you’re still participating here, I have another question.
If we had a machine that could make a duplicate of you down to the placement of every atom, would that duplicate have this extra, non-material thing you’re referring to here? I think earlier in the thread you said it would, and pointed out how it would instantly start diverging from the original.
That implies that you agree with the rest of us - duplicating the material brain will create a new person. Is that not what you said? That sure seems to imply that who you are is material. I sort of get the impression that you’re referring to the emergent property of consciousness as this “extra” bit, but I don’t see how you justify saying that it’s not fundamentally a material process.
You’re getting testy with me and begbert for making assumptions about how you define consciousness/emotion, but I think you have to take the responsibility because you haven’t defined it for us, just made vague hints that seem to conflict with each other. Help us out by stating explicitly what you mean.
I’ve actually thought about this and I’ve been arguing it poorly. Because your example gives me the best argument for the non-materiality of a person. To whit, if you can copy me exactly and make me something identical, then I am made up of something that is not dependent upon my material form. Information itself is not material even if it requires a material medium to be conveyed. The very fact that you can copy something and discard the old material is evidence of that.
Yes, duplicating the material brain will create a new person. Well, what I am actually arguing is that there is something about us that is greater than the ‘sum’ of its parts. The material process contributes to it and is an integral part, something that I emphatically have NOT been disputing. But the point is that if a person is a piece of information, then it is the information and not the hardware that is important. Of course the whole question of purpose and individual choice is still on the table.
I’m getting testy because no matter how many times I say that I am not eliminating the material component as being a necessary part of the equation, you guys keep trying to take the material component out when you go to the debunking phase of the argument. As I said, I view spirit/material MONISTICALLY, not as a duality. The whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts, but that doesn’t mean it is separate from the sum of its parts. The ‘spirit’, ie, ‘consciousness’, resides in the physical world, but information is metaphysical.
I have stated explicitly what I mean. You have just ignored the parts that don’t fit with the stereotypical ‘woo’ preconception that you seem to have. Stop trying to remove the physical component as being relevant and you’ll be able to understand my viewpoint better.
The soul is a metaphysical concept. It requires a physical construct to manifest itself in nature yes. And I am not even arguing that an individual’s soul exists independently of its material form, though you kind of are arguing that by saying that the consciousness can be transferred and copied. Or at least Begbert2 is. You are seem to be saying that we simply are the sum of our concentration gradients.
Soul/Consciousness/Spirit, the thing that is uniquely me that would still exist even if I were to slowly become a cyborg and transfer all of my physical operations into an electro-mechanical format rather than a bio-chemical one. I am the program, not the machine.
Though again, the problem with the computer analogy is the ‘user’. A computer exists entirely to serve the user, the user is the decision maker. That’s where the analogy breaks down. Lobohan’s view is that a decision is merely a series of functions that comes to a conclusion, like an algebra problem. For me what is more interesting are the times when there are two correct answers to a problem and you have to choose one. How is that done? What does that?
It’s a hijack because this thread is “what does it mean to be “spiritual”?”, with the OP clarifying that the question is what is meant by the person when they say that the are “spiritual but not religious”. Discussions about how particular people theorize that the spirit works aren’t really related to whether people self-label with the word or what they mean when they do so - for example, as best I can tell under the definition of the word as you are discussing it no person is more “spiritual” than any other. Clearly people who are self-labeling with the world to distinguish themselves from persons who self-label as religious are not using it in a “everybody is equally spiritual” kind of way - so you must be speaking of something different than the meaning of the word as discussed in the OP. Thus, hijack.
This isn’t a criticism - I’m easily as guilty as you for perpetuating this hijack. I’m just pointing out that it is one. (Particularly when we drift off into free will debates.)
This thread is about what is meant when a specific word is used. Even atheists believe in words. So by any measure it’s perfectly legitimate for us to participate in this thread. (Though it’s not quite as legitimate for us to make pejoritave value judgements about persons who self-identify as “spiritual but not religious” and masquerade those as definitions of the word.)
Regarding your latest post, I will stick my toe in the water again and invite accusations of “strawman!”:
It seems you are saying that a human brain is an organic computer, and that the human mind is software that is running on it. (If so, I agree.) You seem to agree that there are no metaphyscial particles or matter involved in this process. (If so, I agree.)
So far, it seems that a computer and the brain analogize perfectly.
You seem to be labeling the information that exists only in the ‘software’ of our running mind as the thing that is “greater than the sum of its parts” and “metaphysical”. (If so, I would disagree with this labeling for several reasons.) The mind’s status as a ‘metaphysical’ construct of interplaying information seems to be what is earning it the label of “spiritual” or “spirit”.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong or you don’t like this interpretation. (Likeliness assessment: high.)
If I’m not totally off base, this would lead me to ask, is your browser metaphysical? Is it spiritual? So far I do not see any reason it wouldn’t qualify, based on the preceding definitions and labelings. Though, that’s just me.
(As for how we choose between two correct answers, I’m currently doing that in the “Why are we alive?” thread, in a huge hijack. )
Only because you’re defining it in some weird way. If you can copy the material part of a human, and end up with another complete human, that indicates to me that the human is completely material.
But a person can’t be the abstract concept of information, because you can duplicate the material and get a new person. I don’t see how “purpose” has anything to do with this either.
I am trying to understand, not to debunk, but in my efforts I may challenge you. We don’t think you’re saying that you are eliminating the material component, but we’re trying to figure out why you say there’s something else besides the material, which is what you keep hinting at. It was illustrated by your description of “choice” and how it can’t be a product of neurochemistry. For all the talk about how you’re a monist instead of a dualist, your choice argument seems to place you solidly as a dualist, and I don’t understand that.
I grasp that you think the physical is relevant, and I don’t think I have any preconceptions about you. It’s just that some of your words seem to squarely contradict other words. I think we have common ground on a big part here - that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain. Let’s turn again to your idea of choice and free will (BTW, I think this is less of a thread hijack and more just thread drift).
Great, I like that. I’m with you there. A program is deterministic, no?
What’s that got to do with anything? A computer can have the capability to make decisions - they’re really good at that.
I don’t understand why you have this question. It’s just like a computer. The decision depends on lots of stuff, including inputs from multiple sources and stored internal states in the machine. A computer’s choice is just like your brain’s choice. The set of inputs and stored internal states is so vast, however, that it makes the decision process chaotic, so you can’t hope to repeat the exact same process ever, but chaotic things are still deterministic.
I just wanna say that there’s nothing about nondeterminism that makes it incompatible with materialism. It’s impossible to create nondeterminism from determinism, (though you can simulate it, as we do with random number generators), but determinism doesn’t mean the same thing as materialism. Until somebody actually proves that the material world is deterministic at every level, I don’t see a problem believeing that there might be a little randomity in reality somewhere. (Not *too *much, obviously - but a little.)
However, nondeterminism isn’t the same thing as choice, so one really wonders what it has to do with the free will discussion.
Yes, you’re of course right - material processes can be non-deterministic. AFAIK, quantum uncertainty is the only non-deterministic material process we know, and it’s random. Dualists (and mswas, though he’s not a dualist!) say that there’s more to our choices than determinism, but I don’t think they’d be happy with the answer that the only non-deterministic element is randomness.
At this point I hestitate to speculate whatmswas would be happy with, but the sad fact is, if something isn’t random, then there is some factor that is determining how it will turn out to some degree. So people arguing for libertarian free will inevitably want to have their cake and not-have their cake too.
Well perhaps in a state of randomness that’s where choice exists. Like balancing perfectly on a peak, you can choose to go in any direction but it’s predetermined that all directions are down, but you can go down and to the right to the left, forward, backward.
)