Question was inspired by this user from Yahoo, thought I'd get some opinions on this on Think Atheist.

Views: 1742

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Anon, you're confusing the forces with the concepts defining them - the forces exist everywhere, the concepts exist in the minds of Man and possibly other sentient beings throughout the universe.

Yes that is true, but still doesn't resolve the problem of where the pure concepts exist, if no-one is there to see them? The effects of these concepts exist, we can perceive the effects, but everything that we can perceive having an effect, has a place. Where do the pure concepts exist?

Do you think we could possibly move this discussion here? Will add the response you posted since it answers some of the questions I posed. Thanks.

The tree falls, and we both agreed that the sonic particles exist. Where do the pure concepts exist?

Just by asking each other questions and answering each other. We are refining the original question. Beautiful.

Anon, you're confusing the forces with the concepts defining them - the forces exist everywhere, the concepts exist in the minds of Man and possibly other sentient beings throughout the universe.

Yes, I repeated my comment, because you rephrased, then repeated your question, the very thing that Heather found so irritating.

The concepts don't exist, except in the minds of sentient beings capable of conceiving them - the phenomena which the concepts describe, exist in their appropriate places. By this, I mean that if a tree fell in space, of course it would make no sound, but within an atmosphere, it would produce sound waves, regardless of whether or not there was a listener. The falling tree existed, until it finished falling, then it was no longer a falling tree. The sound waves existed, and they will continue to spread further and further from their source until, bit by bit, they are absorbed by objects they encounter, but these are phenomena that are described by concepts, not the concepts themselves.

The concepts do not exist except in the minds of sentient beings capable of observing phenomena and describing them with said concepts. I might have mentioned that a time or two --

Now, by all means, rephrase your question and repeat it again, then we can both continue wasting our time.

Anon, there's definitely a huge difference between living and non-living material. It didn't just happen overnight with a "poof"; it took over a billion years for complex life to evolve, and we're only just now (as humans in the past few hundred years) able to understand much of how it really transpired.

We're up against thousands of years of all kinds of conjecture and myth--pick your favorite--that has tried to explain "life" and humanity before knowledge and science started accumulating. It's difficult for me to comprehend, much less accept my own death, and I avoid thinking about it. I just hope that some positive part of me lives on in others, after the real me is really gone forever. That's all the dualism I can get.

Yeah I totally get that, all things that "live" are immortal through their actions i.e. they act on the world and change it in a way that something that is not alive doesn't. So each living things' tiniest actions of respiration, locomotion etc alter the world. They are immortal because of the effect of those actions however minute are part of a chain reaction which continues forward and backward through time.

Of course, in the traditional conscious sense of immortality we are not immortal. I absolutely accept that when we die, it is over, I never said otherwise. In this sense it is the material world NOT our consciousness which is immortal, a reversal of traditional theological thinking.

I just asked was there something about life which is distinct from matter, some quality that makes it different. Heather Spoonheim stated that it is a form of matter, a temporary equilibrium between chemical/electrical processes. Which explains it.

I remember a funny little thing told me once by a cabalist, "What is Mind, never Matter. What is Matter, never Mind". It was an attempt at a minor outline to Dualism. Sadly the fellow was very delusional, and cooked himself one afternoon while trying build his own sweat house, heard through the grape vine of course.

Thinking about this, does make me wonder if he discovered the problem with Dualism sometime during the accident..;p).



@James - likely, somewhere between (-) the two electrical charges (+) --

"Not only have I wasted my time, but I also perceive having wasted that time, and you are also able to perceive that time wasted - that is 3 times as much waste as actually occurred!  Our very perceptions of things multiply the existence of those things!"

Is that intended to be a refutation? How is that even supposed to work? Perceiving it doesn't make it exist more than it already does. Us perceiving the time does not multiply it. But it still exists.

"This guy reminds me of Glenn Beck." Has nothing to do with anything at all.

Oh, I was beginning to take it personal....LOL

So, if I understand you correctly, your position is this:

The effects of pure concepts exist in the material. The concepts themselves in a pure form do not exist anywhere.

A conscious mind evolves. Now the concept in it's pure form exists in the mind of the consciousness, through it's perception of the effects of said concept on the world. If consciousness then dies, the pure form now no longer exists anywhere, but it's effect would still act in the material world.

How could something have an effect but not exist in a pure form. Matter presumably exists in a pure form somewhere, perhaps physics will discover it. But thought cannot have a pure form? Why?


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service