Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > USA Today article on the illusion of free-will

Forum Quick Jump

130 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 10:15 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
To me, when I came into existence is not so important philosophically. The fact is, we believe our EXPERIENCES coincide with the existence of the material world.

1) Ok. It's not important to you philosophically. But I'm still asking. What are your current thoughts on the subject? That's what I'm after.

2) Our 5 senses experiences can only start with conception...right?

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 10:15 AM (GMT -6)

Whole thread.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 10:16 AM (GMT -6)

If the self is a simple being, then it is not the brain. What the self needs the brain, etc for is EXPERIENCE as opposed to mere CAPACITY for experience. So yes, for me self is not a relation. It IS related. But isn't A relation.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 10:18 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
If the self is a simple being, then it is not the brain. What the self needs the brain, etc for is EXPERIENCE as opposed to mere CAPACITY for experience. So yes, for me self is not a relation. It IS related. But isn't A relation.

Ok. Is this "self" local or non-local? If the self only USES the material, then it is NOT material...right?

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 10:25 AM (GMT -6)

The self, IMO, is a simple being that is not known to have spatial extension. The self EXPERIENCES spatially. I.e., it feels in different PLACES. It seems to think "in the head." But feeling and thinking are not the self. They are experiences OF the self. The self can even be a necessary condition OF those experiences. But the self is NOT its experience, sentient or intellectual.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 10:27 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
The self, IMO, is a simple being that is not known to have spatial extension.

Then the "self" is NOT local...meaning it's universally pervasive of all human brains on Earth, right? Sure, the self experiences spatial self-reference, but ONLY in interaction with a human brain, like you've said. Am I correct?

That means that "Jeff" is formed by...

1.Universally-pervasive immaterial aspect (A)
2.Human material aspect brain (B)
3.Human ego functioning (F) from bi-polar assymetrical interaction of (A) and (B)
4.Human personality amalgamation process (P) from (F)

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Post Edited (One Love) : 1/8/2012 10:15:18 AM (GMT-6)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 10:30 AM (GMT -6)

It doesn't follow because the self is not known to be extended that it's pervasive of all human brains. You need other premises for that conclusion. The only thing that follows from a single, true proposition is that propositions that contradict it are false. So what the other premises?

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 10:31 AM (GMT -6)

Gotta do my 30-minute aerobics right quick. then I'll be back.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 10:32 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
It doesn't follow because the self is not known to be extended that it's pervasive of all human brains. You need other premises for that conclusion. The only thing that follows from a single, true proposition is that propositions that contradict it are false. So what the other premises?

If the self is non-local AND non-material, Jeff...WHERE can it be located or localized to?

confused

Ok. Let's do it like this, Jeff. Let's say that you and I are standing back to back, with backs touching. There's no real physical distance between us. At that point, what separates YOUR "self" from MY "self'"?

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Post Edited (One Love) : 1/8/2012 9:36:48 AM (GMT-6)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 10:46 AM (GMT -6)

Yeah.

I see the bottom picture as the perfect conceptualization of the Logos of God. It's called "Material World".

See if you see what I'm seeing. cool

Seriously. Have fun with it. Go back and forth clicking DIRECTLY from "Material World" to "Christ" and back.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. icon_bandit

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Post Edited (One Love) : 1/8/2012 10:02:14 AM (GMT-6)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 11:00 AM (GMT -6)

Let's say the self is not only not KNOWN to be spatially extended, but it's actually NOWHERE. That just leaves us with the fact that the experience of the self is cognized in terms of where and when, etc.

But then what non-spatial meaning does the clause "universally pervasive of all human brains on Earth" have? "Pervasive" is suggestive of spatially pervasive.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 11:04 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
Let's say the self is not only not KNOWN to be spatially extended, but it's actually NOWHERE.

Would that be like saying the "self" was a scalar field of sorts? Just thinking analogically with the Higgs Field idea. Like the Higgs Field is said to gives mass to all particles, the singular field of consciousness gives "I-ness" and the potential for hypostatic activity to all humans with working brains.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Post Edited (One Love) : 1/8/2012 10:12:44 AM (GMT-6)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 11:06 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
But then what non-spatial meaning does the clause "universally pervasive of all human brains on Earth" have? "Pervasive" is suggestive of spatially pervasive.

All I'm trying to say, Jeff, is that all human souls (emergent from human brains) participate in the singular immaterial, non-local field of consciousness...what you are calling the "self".

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 11:08 AM (GMT -6)

You really can't look through the Sacred Mirrors thing...and not just stand in AWE at our Creator.

If it does anything, it does that! :-)

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 11:46 AM (GMT -6)

Hmmm...

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 11:49 AM (GMT -6)

The minute you throw in words like "field", you're provoking associations to temporality. That's the problem as I see it. If we want to move away from the necessity of spatial extension as an essential attribute of all beings (including souls and God), we can do that by still recognizing that all cognized conscious EXPERIENCE may necessarily entail temporal and spatial relations. I'm just not seeing how we can totally get away from spatial and temporal relations reintruding into all of our language of experience, at least. But yeah, we DO want to try to conceive of a coherent way to say that being, per se, doesn't require 3-D extensionality.

Now don't get me wrong, though. Like the author of the article of the OP, I think Thomas Jefferson's view of God being material is a LOGICAL possibility. I'm just not convinced it's necessary. And in the meanwhile, our own conscious experience is not at all explained by any 3-D extension of the self. If Jefferson was right, it's because being can't be conceived of as non-extended. I see the natural tendency of the mind to want to picture things. But I'm not convinced it's categorically required. After all, what does a logical deduction look like? We want to picture it as written propositions, maybe. But that can't mean logical deduction IS written propositions. The desire to picture is not the equivalent of an a priori abstract concept (like being) or relation.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 11:53 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
The minute you throw in words like "field", you're provoking associations to temporality. That's the problem as I see it. If we want to move away from the necessity of spatial extension as an essential attribute of all beings (including souls and God), we can do that by still recognizing that all cognized conscious EXPERIENCE may necessarily entail temporal and spatial relations. I'm just not seeing how we can totally get away from spatial and temporal relations reintruding into all of our language of experience, at least. But yeah, we DO want to try to conceive of a coherent way to say that being, per se, doesn't require 3-D extensionality.

Now don't get me wrong, though. Like the author of the article of the OP, I think Thomas Jefferson's view of God being material is a LOGICAL possibility. I'm just not convinced it's necessary. And in the meanwhile, our own conscious experience is not at all explained by any 3-D extension of the self. If Jefferson was right, it's because being can't be conceived of as non-extended. I see the natural tendency of the mind to want to picture things. But I'm not convinced it's categorically required. After all, what does a logical deduction look like? We want to picture it as written propositions, maybe. But that can't mean logical deduction IS written propositions. The desire to picture is not the equivalent of an abstract concept like being, or a relation.

Ok. Barring the problems with the word "field", do you see what I'm trying to say on a SIMPLE level? Again, if you and I were back to back, what would separate your immaterial, non-local "self" from mine?

Using the analogy of the earth's atmosphere, all human personality amalgamation processes (from the ego activity of human brains) "breathe the same air" from the singular reality of immaterial, non-local consciousness.

This seems very simple to articulate.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Post Edited (One Love) : 1/8/2012 10:58:23 AM (GMT-6)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 12:03 PM (GMT -6)

D: This seems very simple to articulate.

J: I see it as virtually impossible to articulate verbosely without using spatial analogies. So if non-spatiality/non-extendedness/non-locality is what we're trying to articulate, analogies will fail us. We just have to assert what we're saying and give up on analogies. The analogies RE-introduce the very kind of thinking we're trying to avoid.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 12:06 PM (GMT -6)

Which is why, IMO, we just know our capacities are intended to be used in SPECIFICALLY-DIRECTED ways. This is teleology. It's inavoidable. Adding all the other kinds of articulations never buy us more than the teleology bought us all along. Every person who ever believed in the regularity of event sequences or a moral order of any kind already MADE a teleological inference about NON-VOLITIONAL reality. You take away teleology and those beliefs are blind/arbitrary.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 12:36 PM (GMT -6)

IOW, if spiritual beings are not only non-extended, but NOWHERE, then spiritual beings are truly sui generis in that sense. No analogies to extended beings or processes can help us conceive of NOWHERE-NESS.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 12:44 PM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
IOW, if spiritual beings are not only non-extended, but NOWHERE, then spiritual beings are truly sui generis in that sense. No analogies to extended beings or processes can help us conceive of NOWHERE-NESS.

Ok, bro. I'm trying to understand what you're saying, really. This will HELP me. Given what you are articulating, if you and I were physically back to back, what would distinguish your "self" from my "self". I'm assuming it wouldn't be anything having to do with material reality or location. So, the distinctions cannot be by the distinct brains. So, what would do it? 3rd time's a charm, I guess...

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 1:10 PM (GMT -6)

1st person perspective. I'm not conscious of your conscious experience. You are. You even say that, per your view, the eternal Logos has 1st person perspective of that subset of conscious states you call "Jesus." That's WHY it's only one person. The contradiction for that to me is not the distinction between the superset and the subset. It's the fact that the person experiencing 1st person experience is simultaneously required to have an omniscient and non-omniscient perspective. But yeah, 1st person perspective is the distinguishable element of conscious experience that provides us a principle of individuation for those beings we call selves.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 1:17 PM (GMT -6)

This is nothing new, either. Philosophers have said the same thing.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/8/2012 9:17 PM (GMT -6)

"..."

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/8/2012 9:26 PM (GMT -6)

Am I not understanding the question? How do I distinguish you from me?

Well, I INFER you exist because the things that I can know about you empirically only have analogies to me BECAUSE of my own 1st person conscious experience. You use the words "I" and "me" right where I would in sentences. You describe sentient experiences in the language I would, etc. So I infer your identity to be determined the same as mine. I can't get inside your body to prove you're not a zombie. I infer your body is animated by a conscious being for analogical reasons.

But is the self a being? If not, what is it? One or more attributes of another being? I see how you can try to analogize that approach from the traditional conception of the trinity. But that doesn't help me and non-trinitarians for obvious reasons. I can't get TO that metaphysic for the godhead to apply it elsewhere.

Tom was saying he doesn't want to say the self is just emerging properties. But what else could it be, then, but a being? I need help, I guess.

Even if the traditional conception of the trinity is true, historically, people have already thought of the self independent of the conception of the trinity. So it's not clear to me how their conception of self could have depended upon their conception of the trinity.

130 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual