Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of Great Pumpkin

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Great Pumpkin

1
Choose Your Own Topic / Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« on: February 25, 2012, 04:17:36 pm »
jbiemans wrote: but don't you see Greatpumpkin that saying a triangle requires 3 sides presupoes phycalism, its possible that an immaterial triangle exists that has no sides.

   ... Because i can imagine it, and its not logically impossible"....

   

   Hehe

2
Choose Your Own Topic / Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« on: February 25, 2012, 04:12:57 pm »
Arthur42 wrote: I'm wondering why God would be a mind in the same sense that I have a mind.  I would think that my mind is analogous to God's mind but that they are not the same thing.  As such it seems kind of futile to reason from our own minds to God's mind.  Even if we can show that our minds are immaterial (I doubt this), Christians don't actually argue that God has a human mind, so in what sense does it even matter if our minds are immaterial?

   1. Then why call it a mind? What would it be, a computer? Something else? This would be a rebuttal from ignorance.

   2. You are right that it barely matters what the truth is, a christian can simply assert things are different in their magic la la land without anything more than saying "i can imagine it, its not logically impossible."

3
Choose Your Own Topic / Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« on: February 25, 2012, 02:44:56 pm »
jbejon wrote:
Quote from: GP
X would be, at minimum, an organizational principle that embodies the mind in order for it to function as such.

OK, I don't really know what you mean by "an organisational principle".  I'm not being obtuse--I really don't.

Either way, if you define a mind as something that needs to be "embodied", then, sure, the concept of an unembodied mind is trivially incoherent.  But the claim that a mind needs to be embodied is what you're meant to be demonstrating rather than presupposing.

   Do you agree that a mind must, at least, be bound by something, like the law of identity, the causal principle, or something?

   I don't think i'm presupposing, here, it seems logically necessary.

   

   Frankly, no offense, i think what is happening is i am expressing a logical truth and being accused of a presupposition because it seems so rational.

   

   I feel a little like ive shown that triangles can only have 3 sides, then being accused of presupposing they need 3 sides.

   

   I guess i am looking for something other than skepticism to argue for an unembodied mind.

4
Choose Your Own Topic / Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« on: February 25, 2012, 02:33:15 pm »
jbejon wrote:
Quote from: GP
X would be, at minimum, an organizational principle that embodies the mind in order for it to function as such.

OK, I don't really know what you mean by "an organisational principle".  I'm not being obtuse--I really don't.

Either way, if you define a mind as something that needs to be "embodied", then, sure, the concept of an unembodied mind is trivially incoherent.  But the claim that a mind needs to be embodied is what you're meant to be demonstrating rather than presupposing.

   If, for sake of argument, a mind does need to be embodied, then by discovering that it needs to be embodied is presupposing?

   

   If the fact of the matter is that minds need to be embodied, then i think i have shown how that seems to be necessary.

   

   Btw, organizational principle is a tillich term , one that he beleives is god.

   

   I dont want to have to argue the theist position but it seems i might have to! Mainly because everyone seems to be hanging back and remaining hyperskeptical.

   

   What i have done is argued for a theistic mind, but still show that it must have at least one basic principle to be called a mind. Even if that is, somehow, in the form of a command of "BE!"

   

   But, as you say, it isnt very convincing...

   

   

   So, what argument besides "i can imagine it , its not logically impossible " is there?

   

   Thats where i am hung up. Ive argued a bare minimum, and the barest of minimum for a theistic mind, but no one is convinced.

   

   Perhaps we are all materialist, without our presuppositions?

5
Choose Your Own Topic / Life Without God.
« on: February 25, 2012, 01:44:53 pm »
Jared wrote:
Quote from: GreatPumpkin
What absurd comments from theists.
Btw, will any of you read Bultmann?


What makes you think we aren't familiar with him?

   Because you are still a Christian.  

6
Choose Your Own Topic / Life Without God.
« on: February 25, 2012, 12:24:55 pm »
Apparently, 90% of all pastors are the same as this guy, but they realize the lower 50% of IQ's need religion and social services, and since these sub-100 IQ people have been brainwashed by the church that non-xians are evil, the non-xian pastors dont say anything.

   

   Its pretty sad, really.

   

   After all, only the lower IQ's beleive the stories, the ones who say they beleive are really just atheists trying not to hurt the poor people....

   

   

7
Choose Your Own Topic / John Leonard Says Goodbye to drcraigvideos
« on: February 25, 2012, 10:52:01 am »
Ive never seen someone more proud of misreprenting positions as Leonard.  He's the Karl Rove of apologetics, but without the mental capacity, just the sliminess.

8
Choose Your Own Topic / Life Without God.
« on: February 25, 2012, 10:35:56 am »
What absurd comments from theists.

   Btw, will any of you read Bultmann?

9
Choose Your Own Topic / Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« on: February 25, 2012, 10:27:21 am »
jbiemans wrote: I think condition X would be some sort constraint or container to keep the mind contained and distinct from other minds.

   Yes, someting that keeps it discreet: embodied.

10
Choose Your Own Topic / Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« on: February 25, 2012, 09:56:11 am »
And re-reading your syllogism, a think that is very close to what i am thinking.

   Let add a term from Tillich, an "organizational principle".

   There would have to be something that organizes or embodies the mind in order for it to have logical coherency.

   

   X would be, at minimum, an organizational principle that embodies the mind in order for it to function as such.

   

   Note, i am being incredibly lenient and generous for a materialist to say this. But i want the whole discussion laid out on the.table.

11
Choose Your Own Topic / Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« on: February 25, 2012, 08:49:05 am »
jbejon wrote:
GP,

I still can't get much of an argument from what you've written.  It seems to me that your overall argument is:

(1) God is an unembodied mind
(2) Unembodied minds are incoherent
(3) Therefore, God does not exist

Fine.  Only (2) is controversial.  So, you want to support (2) with an argument of the form:

(4) Anything that can reasonably be referred to as a "mind" would have to fulfil condition X
(5) An unembodied mind cannot, by virtue of being unembodied, fulfil condition X
(6) Therefore, an unembodied mind is incoherent

The question that remains, then, is, What is this condition X?

As best as I can make out, you've suggested that X is "being identical with itself" or "being able to causally interact with other things".

However, none of these conditions work.  If I have/am an immaterial mind, then my mind is clearly identical with itself.  It is also able to causally interact with other things, e.g. my brain.

So, I can't find an argument that persuades me here.

   I think my question revolves around the ontological nature of the terms: "mind" (as a thing that functions as a mind) and "unembodied" (free of any framework or structure).

   First, i think its silly that for the most part the theists have agreed that an unembodied mind in this universe is hard to imagine, but if they invent new rules (namely that UM's can exist somehow) it becomes just a priori fact.

   

   Usually you would start with an inkling that it is possible in the real world before resorting to imaginary worlds.

   

   After all we can have a vigorous mind-body debate under atheism, right here on earth.

   

   But the theist knows that what ever comes of that debate mmust apply to their god, so they always skew it towards that.

   

   So, id just like to start at the basics, analogies aside and define the mind in a way we are all happy with.

12
Choose Your Own Topic / Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« on: February 25, 2012, 08:21:40 am »
Archsage wrote:
Quote from: GreatPumpkin
Or, if you like:

The Mind is the  letters in a book, the Brain is the book.

If you burn the book, you don't have a Mind.


Close, but not yet there. The Brain is the Book and the Mind is the Story. Burn the Book and you probably won't be able to read the Story. But the Story needn't have the Book in order to exist, of course. And if you get rid of the Story, all the Book is, is paper and ink.

   A story is conceptual: of the mind.  How can a mind be of the mind?

13
Choose Your Own Topic / Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« on: February 25, 2012, 07:36:33 am »
Archsage wrote:
Quote from: GreatPumpkin
Or, if you like:

The Mind is the  letters in a book, the Brain is the book.

If you burn the book, you don't have a Mind.


Close, but not yet there. The Brain is the Book and the Mind is the Story. Burn the Book and you probably won't be able to read the Story. But the Story needn't have the Book in order to exist, of course. And if you get rid of the Story, all the Book is, is paper and ink.

   A story is conceptual: of the mind.  How can a mind be of the mind?

14
Choose Your Own Topic / John Leonard Says Goodbye to drcraigvideos
« on: February 24, 2012, 09:55:22 pm »
idunno wrote:
Quote from: GreatPumpkin
Is there a chance that wlc himself asked him to stop?

   

   Have you noticed our newest member?

   Yes, it was quite flattering and funny!

15
Craig vs Kagan / Typical Christian response to Kagan
« on: February 24, 2012, 08:28:49 pm »
RandyE wrote:
Quote from: GreatPumpkin
This is the most absurd rationalle for Craig doing poorly - and he did poorly.  Kagan wiped the floor with him.

If it was a scholarly conversation with a leading professor in a subject that truly matters, why would Craig leave his best, strongest and most rigorous material home?

Come on, even you can see that.

Kagan showed that he simply knew more about the subject, and Craig had no responses, or tried to weasel his way towards apologetic weasel answers.

Craig is NOT very good on  the moral issue.  He has repeatedly shown that he knows his position, but does not grasp contrary positions.  The Kagan debate clearly exposed this.

Again, Craig may have been asked to keep his rhetorical debate tricks at home (and to him this means leaving his strongest stuff at home), but he would have been encouaraged to bring his best SCHOLARLY arguments to the debate.  He did, and they were lacking.

Even the questions he asked showed that he didn't understand Kagan's position, and he tried to pin words on Kagan as if they were bad words... "you're a determinist" (when he knew Kagan was a compatibalist..)


BTW, why bring up Krauss? trying to change the subject?

First, in lion's defense, you brought up Krauss. Second, not even all atheists think Kagan wiped the floor with Craig, or even won (see Common Sense Atheism, if I remember correctly). Third, there's a bit of an irony here, as compatibilism just is determinism--that's what is supposed to be compatible! So, rather than Craig misunderstanding, it seems you have misunderstood. Fourth, you didn't really offer us anything of substance. I'm not sure anyone should take you seriously.


I brought up the name, but not the substance of the debate.  See it in context.

Craig tried to make it sound that Kagan was a strict Determinist, which is not the same as a Compatibilist.  You know this and so does Craig, so now you are just continuing the disingenuous debate tactics.

I did bring something of substance.  The substance is that people on this very thread claim that Craig himself said that he "backed off" because he was supposed to have a scholarly discussion not a debate.

I know you have trouble seeing the difference, and the importance, but in a scholarly discussion, there is no reason to leave your best material at home, only your debate tactics and tricks.

Craig is not the same level of scholar as Kagan, and would be lost in any scholarly discussion in which he actually had to have a grasp on any view other than his own.
Kinda like you, actually.  I've seen your blog and notice you learn other positions enough to make snide attacks but leave our massive amount of substance.

anything to bolster the faith, eh?

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 73