Garry Kasparov might be good at chess but...

[Michel Delving]

Click here: Don't bother reading it all. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-654506,00.html) just the bit that starts:- As a big fan of Tolkein I believe...

Do you agree with him?

I do not.

There is absolute evil and absolute good and both were created by man. Good and evil are concepts created in the mind of man.

Outside of here (our perceived universe) Good and Evil do not exist.

The Lord of the Rings reflects this.

It is the internal world of Mankind born as a New Myth.

[YayGollum]

No, I don't agree. I'd think that there's absolute good, but not absolute evil. There's Eru, then there's everyone else. All of the little imperfect people.

[Gandalf White]

There is absolute evil and absolute good and both were created by man. Good and evil are concepts created in the mind of man.....

The Lord of the Rings reflects this.

No, I don't agree with what you're saying here. In Lord of the Rings Iluvatar created everything absolutely good. This dismisses what you say about man creating good and evil. The elves, men, or dwarves did not 'make up' good or evil, it was already determined. All they had to do was choose which way to go. Melkor, of course, took some of the good and created absolute evil.

Also, could you please define your term 'perceived universe'?

[Michel Delving]

Me and Garry or Garry and I (we don't know each other) are actually talking about the real world not Middle Earth. Sorry to be unclear (not something I usually am;) ).

I didn't mean man as in Man, Elves, Dwarves and the various races of Middle Earth. I meant Man as in you and me: Mankind (and Womankind! ;) before you start).

Perceived Universe, as in what you see through your eyes and interpret with your brain.

A Philosophical Question reflected by and within Lord of the Rings rather than the other way round.

[YayGollum]

Got it. Why would someone be offended by people not putting down the word ---> womankind? Mankind would work for both because 'man' is in the word ---> woman. oh well. Nevermind. I'm just crazy. Anyways, sorry for thinking that you were talking about LOTR. Maybe it's just because we're talking about it in a LOTR type are. Silly me. Well, I still don't agree with either of you people. As far as I know, LOTR is the same as the real world in that Eru (God) is all good and everyone else is imperfect. Noone but that guy is pure anything.

[Gandalf White]

Heh, my bad. *Gandalf feels embarassed* :o

As far as I know, LOTR is the same as the real world in that Eru (God) is all good Yes, so far I agree with you YayGollum. However, I believe that Satan is absolute evil.

God created Man perfect. Man fell. Man is imperfect. Man, by his own power can only go down, to the evil. Do I believe someone can be absolutely evil? Probably, yes. However, he still has a chance to be freed from it. To sum it up we have.....

Iluvatar (God) (absolute Good)

| Man (who tends downward)
|
\ /
_________________________
Satan (absolute Evil)


Perceived Universe, as in what you see through your eyes and interpret with your brain. Let me use Lord of the Rings to discuss this. In it, Iluvatar (God) is beyond all races 'perceived universe.' Does this negate that fact that he Exists and he is Good? No. Meaning, Good and Evil exist outside of our perceived universe.

[YayGollum]

Well, no. I don't see how anything can be pure evil. God tossed free will at everybody and started them all off on the right foot. They got to decide if they'd get greedy or whatever. Sure, people can become pretty bad, but that's their choice. They have the choice to be good, too. Which makes them not pure evil. Yay!

[Gandalf White]

Originally posted by YayGollum
Well, no. I don't see how anything can be pure evil. God tossed free will at everybody and started them all off on the right foot. They got to decide if they'd get greedy or whatever. Sure, people can become pretty bad, but that's their choice. They have the choice to be good, too. Which makes them not pure evil. Yay! Hmmm, I will have to agree with the conclusion you just came to. However, are you also saying that Satan is not pure Evil? Do you believe he can become good?

[YayGollum]

Sure, I guess he could, but from what I hear, he won't. :rolleyes: You gots to admit that he started off on the right foot. You agreed that regular old people were just imperfect because of that. God gave Lucifer free will, too. I don't get why he'd make somebody just to be evil.

[Mithlond]

Gandalf White:

Eru states very clearly to Melko that everything that transpires within Ea from beginning to end does so according to his own design, and that for everything Melko tries to ruin, it will not matter as Eru planned it to happen.

Therefore i cannot believe that Eru is absolute good. He is good yes, but it would appear he has a slight touch of a dark side within him, or Melko would not have even rebelled in the first place.

However, when free will comes into the picture it complicates things a little.. but since the Ainur were the offspring of his thought, i think they should pretty much follow in his ways..

[YayGollum]

So, what? You think that those Ainur type things were all just a bunch of brainless robots? That's sad. But then, if that's so, none of them could be pure anything, either. Anyways, I don't see why him tossing free will at people can make him evil in any way. :confused:

[Gandalf White]

Originally posted by Mithlond
Gandalf White:

Eru states very clearly to Melko that everything that transpires within Ea from beginning to end does so according to his own design, and that for everything Melko tries to ruin, it will not matter as Eru planned it to happen.

Therefore i cannot believe that Eru is absolute good. He is good yes, but it would appear he has a slight touch of a dark side within him, or Melko would not have even rebelled in the first place.

However, when free will comes into the picture it complicates things a little.. but since the Ainur were the offspring of his thought, i think they should pretty much follow in his ways.. If what you say is true then that's where the comparison with real life breaks down. There is no 'evil side' to God. However, what you say is not true. Ainur were the offspring of his thought, meaning he made them. With their own free will!!!! Each one could choose what he wanted to do without any intervention from anyone else. Melkor became jealous and wanted to make his own creation, apart from Iluvatar's. In no way was Iluvatar responsible for the sin of Melkor.

Sure, I guess he could, but from what I hear, he won't. You gots to admit that he started off on the right foot. You agreed that regular old people were just imperfect because of that. God gave Lucifer free will, too. I don't get why he'd make somebody just to be evil. I agreed for the moment because I had to think it through. There is no "grey" zone in life. There is good and evil, nothing in between. You are either going to heaven or not. There is no in-between. Erm....Now I can't remember where I was going with this.... :rolleyes: :eek: :confused: sheez..... let me think

[YayGollum]

Yikes! No gray area? That makes no sense to me. The free will thing. Everyone's gray. Including Lucifer.

[HLGStrider]

I believe in absolute good and absolute evil. I believe that evil is corrupted good, and that God gave free will. Satan made the choice to be evil, to defy God. I think he could repent because I believe anything is possible with God. I don't believe he will because it would be totally against his corrupted nature.

I don't usually believe in a gray area, but it is a very gray term. I don't believe right and wrong is always easy to see. I believe that some things are morally nuetral (What we eat for breakfast, for instance). I believe anything besides God can be corrupted. God is all powerful and incorruptable as such. . .

This is more philosophy than "tolkienology," however.

[Gandalf White]

This is more philosophy than "tolkienology," however. Yes, we really need a Guild of Philosophy. It would be rather interesting.

[YayGollum]

Ack! Crazy lady! How can there be pure evil if everything can be corrupted? If it could be corrupted, then it must have been good at some time. Which makes it not very pure evil.

[Gandalf White]

What about Melkor? What possible little bit of good could there be in him?

[HLGStrider]

Pure evil does not mean to me created evil. It means to me an abscence of good. If something can change its character so that it becomes devoid of good, it has become pure evil. . .Which is quite an oxymoron, if you think about it.

I believe that some actions are bad. I don't believe that a human being can be all bad, but I believe it is impossible for them to be good in themselves. They need God for that. If God is pure good, and Satan has rejected God and all that is good, yes, he is pure evil. If he would repent (which has to be possible, if you believe that with God all things are possible) he could become good.

The question is whether a human being can totally reject good and become depraved enough to be pure evil. I truly don't know.

In the Lord of the Rings, we could see good in Gollum, but we were never shown any good in Sauron, who was once good, or at least fair. Sauron had completely rejected all good. Gollum had not. Melkor had rejected all good as well. If Eru is all powerful there was hope for even Sauron and Melkor, but that is sort of a moot point, considering they aren't in the mood to repent.

[Gandalf White]

Very well said Elgee.

In answer to you YayGollum, just because Satan had the choice to be evil didn't make him evil, so the free will to do good cannot make him only partially evil. First he must exercise his free will to do good. And we all know he won't do that, making him purely evil.

[Michel Delving]

God is a word. Good with an o missing.

Devil is a word. Evil with a d added.

In the beginning was the word.

In the beginning was J R R Tolkien.

Man created God, not the other way round. Man wrote God down. That is why the beginning was the word.

Eru, Iluvatar, Melkor & Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf et al were created by Tolkien. He wrote down a Creation Myth and a History.

I could just as easily believe in Lord of the Rings as the Bible. Only Faith makes these things real.

It is an elitist Western assumption that our God is the only God.

From China to the North American Indians or from the Middle East to Ancient Greece, throughout Time and Infinity, Man has created stories to explain the insanity and beauty of existence.

Tolkien told us a new story.

And, as God was created by Man, so were Good and Evil. They exist within us and are given names like Aragorn & Jesus or Sauron & Satan, respectively.

They do not exist outside of us.

[Eriol]

If a Guild of Philosophy is ever established I will belong to it!

Regarding this debate, and as is common with philosophic debates, I see a lack of definition that is beginning to cause trouble. I would encourage us to define "existence". When you say Good and Evil do not exist, you have to explain what this mean. They do not exist "outside of us", you say. Therefore something exists "outside of us", otherwise the distinction would not make sense. And how can a deed be evil "inside of us" and not evil "outside of us"? An example: If I kill an innocent child, I am evil "inside of me", or "outside of me"? This must be addressed.

(In technical terms, does morality have ontological existence, or is it merely a psychological fact?)

This, of course, is a completely unrelated question to the origin and cause of mythologies throughout the world and whether the Christian story is a true story or not.

Michel Delving, you are right that the word was created by man, up to the fact that I call God "Deus", in my own language. Different sounds, different languages. But this does not prove that the concept being addressed does not exist. The whole question of the relations of words to reality is a very interesting matter for debate.

Finally, my own opinion about "absolute" Good and Evil (even the use of this adjective is interesting in itself, apparently relating the expression in use to a concept "outside of us" -- otherwise it would not be "absolute", meaning, presumably, "objective").

"Existence", in itself, is a good. It is better to exist than to not exist. Everything that exists is, therefore, good in some measure. It may have fallen in such an enormous extent that it is very bad indeed compared to what it could be (Satan is the prime example), but while it exists, it has at least this "good" characteristic. I believe "existence" has such a connotation because it is allowed by God -- another big debate in the womb.

[Gandalf White]

I could just as easily believe in Lord of the Rings as the Bible. Only Faith makes these things real. Except the fact that Jesus actually walked the earth, that the Bible coincides with archeological finds, etc. Have we any proofs of elves or dwarves? No. Please note the difference. LotR was written by a Christian, the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Do you need faith? Yes, but it is not a blind faith, not one that makes you take a blind leap.
It is an elitist Western assumption that our God is the only God. This is actually more of a Christian view, and a correct one in my opinion. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."

In the beginning was the word. If this was an attempt at quoting Scripture to back yourself up, please try again. Actually, it is "In the beginning was the Word. It comes from the Greek 'logos', and in the Gospel of John (where the quote is found) is used to mean Divine Expression, i.e. Christ. Man created God, not the other way round. Man wrote God down. That is why the beginning was the word. With the above explanation the "beggining was Jesus"

As to the rest of your statements. We could debate this until we go silly, grow beards to our knees, or give up. But if that happens, I know I am going to be proved right in the end.

[Gandalf White]

If a Guild of Philosophy is ever established I will belong to it! Yes, Eriol, I thought of you as I wrote those very words. I was also wondering how long it was going to take before you found this thread. I'm really looking forward to hearing your continued arguments and opinions.

[HLGStrider]

I believe in concrete reality.

MD, I don't think you could use the Bible to back up your quotes. It doesn't make sense because in other places the Bible directly contradicts you. . .so if you want to find a book to use, find one that supports your views. Otherwise you are going to get into a sort of circular reasoning. You say that it is wrong, yet you take a part of it and say that that is right. Why? Because it backs up your theory. Why are the other parts wrong? Because they don't back up your theory.

I think it is arrogant for man to assume that he made God. I think that God laughs at that and doesn't take it all too seriously. I think God made the world for men, and they are very important, the most important thing in this world. (I hope no one minds my use of men to mean human. I'm female myself, so I think that gives me the right to use "sexist" language). However, if the world were to blow up taking all men with it, God would exist. (In fact, if men have souls, men would still exist.).

God existed before men. He spoke and it happened, that part of how I interpeted the word, though GW has a more scholarly answer.

God invented a world and made it run under certain rules. He made certain things good and the corruption of those good things is bad (Corruption sometimes manifests itself in opposites. Hate is the opposite of love. Jealousy is a corruption of love.).

The idea of one God is fairly Western, I would admit, but it isn't elitist. Now adays most of whom I would consider the elite carry the opposing views and look down upon those who carry the idea of absolutes.

Try saying that certain sexual behaviors are immoral sometime. You will be labeled a bigot or a fundementalist. Try saying that there is absolute right or wrong. You will be labeled old fashion. Make statements such as you made (which I have heard often), and you will be hailed as a great thinker and philosopher.

I'm thinking of a quote I read from a retelling of a conversation between Tolkien and Lewis. . .about a tree. I'll try to remember it.

Tolkien: Look at that! It's feet are in the ground! It's crown is in the air! (Goes on for awhile about the awesomeness of this thing), and yet we call it a tree! A tree!

Lewis: Of course. That is just a word. . .a classification given to the solid by men.

Gosh. . I wish I remembered this. The point was that men name and tell stories that are real. The point is which storys are real.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
Yes, Eriol, I thought of you as I wrote those very words. I was also wondering how long it was going to take before you found this thread. I'm really looking forward to hearing your continued arguments and opinions.

Er, thanks! I'm flattered!

*Eriol shifts his feet awkwardly and blushes at the nice compliment*

I guess we must wait for the good MD to defend his position...

*Emboldened by GW, Eriol ventures a sarcastic comment, especially as Elgee's words were a kind of 'general statement', pointing at no one in this thread, or so Eriol thinks*:

Try saying that there is absolute right or wrong. You will be labeled old fashion.

This is (or rather, should be!) the easiest-to-avoid mistake in philosophy, the self-contradicting statement... It is really shocking that so many people state "there is no absolute truth" as if it were an absolute truth :rolleyes: .

[YayGollum]

Yikes! If you get to decide if you're going to do good things or bad things, you are not pure evil. The way you're talking about it, HLGStrider person, it seems to me to be that everyone is pure evil at some point. Know what I mean? Or do you just get to say that Satan is pure evil because he's been evil for longer than anyone else? :rolleyes:

[Gandalf White]

YayGollum, do you believe Satan started out purely good?

[Nóm]

Surely even a boy must understand that fruit is fruit, and does not reach its full being until it is ripe; so that to misuse it unripe is to do worse than just to rob the man that has tended it: it robs the world, hinders a good thing from fulfilment. Those who do so join forces with all that is amiss, with the blights and the cankers and the ill winds. And that was the way of Orcs.'
Hinders a good thing from fulfilment, does it? Good for what? How is a ripe fruit better for a tree or the Earth than an unripe fruit? Nay, it is better for men.

'And is the way of Men too.' said Saelon. 'No! I do not mean of wild men only, or those who grew "under the Shadow", as they say. I mean all men. I would not misuse green fruit now, but only beause I have noo longer any use for unripe apples, not for your loofty reasons, Master Borlas. Indeed I think your reasons as unsound as an apple that has been too long in store. To trees all Men are Orcs. Do Men consider the fulfilment of the life-story of a tree before they cut it down? For whatever prupose: to have its room for tilth, to use its flesh as timber or as fuel, or merely to open the view? If trees were judges, woud they set Men above Orcs, or indeed above the cankers and blights? What more right, they might ask, have Men to feed on their juices than blights?'
'A man' said Borlas, 'who tends a tree and guards it from blights and many other enemies does not act like an Orc or a canker. If he eats its fruit, he does it no injury. It produces fruit more abundantly that it needs for it's own purpose: the continuing of its kind.'
'Let him eat the fruit then, or play with it,' said Saelon. 'But I spoke of slaying: hewing and burning; and by what right men do such things to trees.'
'You did not. You spoke of the judgement of trees in these matters. But trees are not judges. The children of the One are the masters.'

A man who tends a tree and guards it from blights and many other enemies does not act like an Orc or a canker?... And why is that? Because he acts out of love of the tree? Or.. maybe it is because he acts out of selfishness, wanting the tree for his own.

If he eats fruit he does it no injury? Then picking and throwing, and "wasting" of unripe fruit does no harm to the tree or the Earth. It takes only from the man who would have otherwise eaten the ripe fruit.

You tell him Saelon!

That is what I think of mankind, and its so called good and evil.
if there is a universal good and evil, even if we are not aware of what it really is, then men are evil. So I think.

I used to wonder often about good and evil, and generally decided that it is all relative and can be looked at countless ways. I do not care to bother with wondering about it anymore, since I think the answering can not be known, or if it can be, thinking about it is no way to look for it... the answer may find someone, but will anyone find it? Some will think they have, but I will doubt them until I know better.


That text is from The New Shadow, and can be found in History of Middle-earth 12.

[Eriol]

I suppose Nóm's first quote was defending the idea that killing an unripe fruit was evil for the fruit itself, since it prevented its development. Not just for the tree, or the Earth... or men. The same argument could be applied to the killing of trees, animals... and men. (This can easily become a debate about abortion).

The main point is Nóm's question, "good for what?" It assumes that something can have no goodness in itself, only goodness for some purpose. This is open to a reductio ad absurdum, in which every purpose must be judged by some later purpose and finally we get dizzy and lost. No, surely some things are good in themselves -- such as "existence".

As for our inability to find out the true nature of good and evil, it is a valid point. But we'll never know unless we search for it. This point does not rule out that there is a true nature of good and evil, only that, perhaps, it is beyond our frail abilities to discover it. But this must not stop the search.

And even if this hypothesis is proven true and we cannot really discover by ourselves the true nature of good and evil, (which I do not grant, this is for the sake of argument), it does not rule out that we can find about it by being told about it by someone who is not as limited -- such as God.

(I think, in fact, that our ability to discern the true nature of good and evil is one of the main arguments for the existence of God!)

[YayGollum]

Sure, I'd say that Satan started out good. Why not? Well, maybe I'd just say that he was imperfect. He had free will and decided to be evil. He was the first evil that ever showed up, but when Adam and Eve showed up, they were just plain good until Satan messed with their brains. Okay. Got it. Satan and Adam and Eve all started out good, but as soon as they did something evil, everybody else got to start out imperfectly. Isn't that the subject here? Is there pure good or pure evil? Why would we get into abortion and eating fruit? :confused:

[Michel Delving]

As I was reading Eriol’s first post I could feel my mind elevating above my own ideas. This is always a good sign. Then, however, it seemed to go downhill and started to get into the I’m right/you’re wrong style of debate, so common on the Internet. A style I tried to highlight in the infamous (to some) Balrog Thread. Then there was some stuff about fruit up a tree and I started getting lost in the woods.

To begin at the beginning:

Existence = The centre of your own Universe. You and I alive within the second it took me to type the full stop at the end of this sentence and the same moment it took for you to see it.

Outside of Us = Everyone else’s own personal Universe. Everything that is not you or I and the moment we are in.

You can’t prove God exists you can only have faith that it does. And faith is the point. Without faith you’d curl up and wither. And faith can be as basic as desire (for material things) of as lofty as Faith in Reincarnation, God or life after death.

You also can’t prove Jesus was real. You may speculate through archaeological research (and the only example I know of is the Turin Shroud – but I’m sure you can tell me lots more, Gandalf White) that a prophet called Jesus existed and did everything he was said to have done in The New Testament. You could also equally say, that the whole thing is allegorical fiction about a way to live for the good.

If Divine Expression is the Word, Gandalf W, then I take that to mean Born of the Imagination. The Inspiration to create the Word. Just like Tolkien created LotR. You can call this inspiration God if you like, or Jesus, or Buddha, or Allah, whatever you like.

I hope the Bible does contradict me HLGStrider, I think the Bible contradicts itself. In contradiction and opposites lies the core. All the opposing ideas of this thread, for example, point to a whole, continually in conflict and harmony, simultaneously. As for God speaking (just as Eru sang) and creating the world have a word with Charles Darwin about that. I admire the fact that you have the Faith to believe it but I don’t.

A Philosopher (whom I’m sure Eriol can name – because I can’t remember) said the Universe was a circle that was so big that it’s circumference was a straight line. Think about it. How hard is that to comprehend? A circle that is a straight line! That’s how difficult all our ideas are. Ideas of Good and Evil included. You can never resolve it.

Rather, than this being a source of misery we should celebrate the fact that we know nothing. Nothing except what we perceive as individuals and share in our human consciousness; nothing except what we label with words, in the hope that they will turn a straight line back into a circle that we can see.

[Gandalf White]

If Divine Expression is the Word, Gandalf W, then I take that to mean Born of the Imagination. The Inspiration to create the Word. Just like Tolkien created LotR. You can call this inspiration God if you like, or Jesus, or Buddha, or Allah, whatever you like. Please note Michel, that John specifically uses Divine Expression to mean Jesus. He does not leave it to doubt or guessing as you suppose. "In the beginning was Jesus" Period.

I hope the Bible does contradict me HLGStrider, I think the Bible contradicts itself. In contradiction and opposites lies the core. All the opposing ideas of this thread, for example, point to a whole, continually in conflict and harmony, simultaneously. As for God speaking (just as Eru sang) and creating the world have a word with Charles Darwin about that. I admire the fact that you have the Faith to believe it but I don’t. I think the sky is green. Prove it.

Actually both theories for the beginning of the world take faith. In my opinion Evolution just takes a lot more. I can't prove that God created the world, but neither can you prove Evolution is responisible for where we are today. So we both have Faith, there's no need to admire me.




YayGollum: "And God saw that it was good." He made everything perfect. Thus, even though Lucifer had free will, he was not imperfect, nor did it 'make' him evil. So then neither can his free will 'make' him good, or not absolutely evil until he exercises it to do good.



Oops, I nearly forgot to address this point.....You also can’t prove Jesus was real. You may speculate through archaeological research (and the only example I know of is the Turin Shroud – but I’m sure you can tell me lots more, Gandalf White) that a prophet called Jesus existed and did everything he was said to have done in The New Testament. You could also equally say, that the whole thing is allegorical fiction about a way to live for the good. You misunderstood me. I was in no way implying that Jesus was real because of certain archeological finds, merely stating that the Bible coincides with them. There is really no debate as to if Jesus walked the earth. The ancient historian Josephus recorded His life, I believe. Also, please explain to me why the Gospels aren't accurate history.

[YayGollum]

You crazy. just because God saw that it was good in the first place doesn't make it perfect. Or am I just crazy for thinking that having all kinds of potential to be all kinds of evil isn't a very good thing? oh well. I'm not saying that free will makes you good or evil. It gives you the choice. But since you can go either way whenever you think about it, you're never pure anything.

[HLGStrider]

Without choice there is no good, and while choice does leave room for choice to bad, good cannot truly exist without it.

For instance, let's say we have a poor child who needs money. It is good to give him something to eat. Let's say a person has food and is near the child. That person has a choice: give or not to give. If he choses one he has done a good thing. If he choses another he has not.

Let's say a man comes up to the man before the man even knows about the child and takes the money by force and gives it to the child. The same results, but no choice, and therefore the first man has done nothing good.

Good isn't possible without choice. Whether or not bad is is awhile other question.

I once read there was more proof that Jesus lived than that Shakespeare did. I think any historian who denied it would be generally scoffed at.

Evolution is just a theory, and Darwin wasn't perfect. There is cause for doubt, and when there is cause for doubt, I think faith can win over it. Eriol, I know, believes in evolution. I don't. I think that there are enough scientists who don't (not a majority, but enough) that I, as a nonscientist, can doubt with them.

In general, things like this will degenerate into "I'm right, you're wrong" because we are dealing with things that cannot be proven, only rhetorically debated. If there is something that is true and something that is false in this debate, someone is going to be right and someone is going to be wrong. What else can you do but state it?

I've heard a lot of people tell me that the Bible contradicts itself. I've never seen anyone give me proof. I don't believe the translations we have nowadays are perfect, however. They are very good, but not perfect. I believe the Bible to be perfect in its originallity and very little unchanged. It is a very whole book archelogically.

I know nothing but God knows everything and lives inside me, and when He manifests himself, I can do anything.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Michel Delving
As for God speaking (just as Eru sang) and creating the world have a word with Charles Darwin about that. I admire the fact that you have the Faith to believe it but I don’t.

Charles Darwin never said a word about the creation of the Universe... I invite you to my thread on Darwinian evolution in the GoP to discuss that :).

As for your definitions, let's take a look on them. Existence = the centre of your own universe. I suppose you mean the individual. But this seems (to me) to say that anything else does not exist. If existence = the centre of your own Universe, then the periphery of your own Universe is not existence. And this is another way of saying that the Outside of Us does not exist (see your own definition of the Outside of Us to check on that).

Now, if you believe that, why are you arguing? Why are you typing? Why do you eat? Why do you... You get the point, surely. The existence of other things outside of us is not liable to proof by logic, since logic can only work on the perceptions of reality, it does not create reality itself. So it is a logical path to disbelieve everything. Descartes tried that.

Logical, yes, but not reasonable. Everybody (the arguer included) acts as if other things existed. Sure, it can all be a big dream, but it can also be real. And we all act as if it were. It is more parsimonious to assume it is real.

I realize this is a plea for common sense in a philosophical discussion, and therefore unlikely to be accepted :D. But I can rephrase the point in a more technical language if you want. The point is that the agent, by showing volition, accepts the existence of the patient. As soon as you want something, you accept that this something exists. (Note I am addressing volition, not thought. You can think about something without accepting its existence. But you cant want something without accepting its existence).

Now if you are an agent and have volition you prove this point by your own actions.

[Michel Delving]

What a mishmash this is turning into!

Just been to the Guild of Politics and started reading, Eriol. My ideas are crumbling, I must build them back up. I'm off to compose something more concrete. I'll be back later than now.

Just a few Questions.

How can Divine Expression be Jesus? It doesn't make sense. Surely it should be Jesus was the Expression of the Divine.

Does everyone think Jesus really did walk the earth?

Does everyone labor under the impression that their views are right and other opposing ones are wrong? Or can we all see that they form a whole were nobody is right or wrong?

And this,Eriol:


The point is that the agent, by showing volition, accepts the existence of the patient. As soon as you want something, you accept that this something exists. (Note I am addressing volition, not thought. You can think about something without accepting its existence.

has me completely baffled. Could you expand, it sounds fascinating but I don't understand it.


With this resolved I can prepare a more detailed response if nothing new comes up first and the ideas get lost. Then we can try and define good and evil which are beginning to exist even though they don't.

[Gandalf White]

How can Divine Expression be Jesus? It doesn't make sense. Surely it should be Jesus was the Expression of the Divine. John was using the language artistically to state that Jesus was with God from the beginning.

Does everyone think Jesus really did walk the earth? As Elgee said, the vast majority of historians believe he did. All they question was whether he was right or wrong.

Does everyone labor under the impression that their views are right and other opposing ones are wrong? Or can we all see that they form a whole were nobody is right or wrong? I know that some of my views are unshakeably right, and others are probably very wrong and I need someone to reveal this to me. That's what I love about this forum.

I can't seem to grasp your theory of no right or wrong. Is everything just "blah" (for lack of a better word)? We all have opinions which we believe to be right, but there is no right, so it doesn't matter? Perhaps you could expound more.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Michel Delving

Does everyone think Jesus really did walk the earth?


Why wouldn't we think that? Do we think that Julius Caesar walked the earth? Isaac Newton? George Washington?

I find it interesting that the reasoning used to deny that Jesus existed is quite parallel with the one used to deny evolution, but of course people who use the first do not accept the second, and vice versa. If we trust the historical evidence (witness accounts and documents on one side, fossils and the molecular evidence on the other), we believe in both. Or at least we see that both are lively possibilities.

I'm not sure of what you mean about the Divine Expression, we can delve further into that if you want. (But we'll need definitions ;)).

You ask a very important question, MD. Is it possible for everybody to be right and wrong, or, in other words, that we are all right and all wrong? To say yes would be a denial of one of the two following things:

(a) absolute truth
(b) our ability to grasp truth

These two lines of inquiry can be called ontological and epistemological, respectively. The first one examines what is, the second one examines what can be known.

That there is no absolute truth was shown previously to be a self-contradicting statement. So what, one may ask? Well, this may be a defect in our brains, and we would then be attacking the epistemological problem, but as it is we can't conceive a world in which a self-contradicting statement is true. If we are not to trust our brains without any compelling reason, we will be doomed to inaction. For the fact is that we do trust them daily, when we wake up, put on our clothes... IN REAL LIFE, we don't act is if A could be A and not-A simultaneously. So the hypothesis "our brains are defective" defeats itself, for it dooms everyday life. Not to mention that it is also self-contradicting, since how could we find out that the brains are defective if they are defective? The "we" that finds out something, in the sentence, can be substituted by "brains". And then we have: "our brains found out that our brains are defective, and this conclusion is absolutely right". The conclusion negates the premise.

This may be a bit confusing. But the conclusion is simple, since we follow it without second thought: our brains are, in fact, equipped to deal with the universe. Accepting that, we accept the law of non-contradiction as something real, not a simple delusion. And accepting that, we reject the "there is no absolute truth" hypothesis.

(Note I am not bringing God into it, not yet. It is quite possible that our reasoning equipment is a product of the blind forces of evolution, at this stage. My reason for doubting it is not related to what has been said so far).

So, there is truth "out there". That there is something "out there" is quite obvious, for our logic can only work with the data from the senses -- the very words we use for thinking are derived from data from the senses. And the data come from "outside". Since we think (or we could not be arguing), we get data from outside. But what does it mean to say that there is "truth" out there? It means that our reasoning equipment can detect laws of how the universe works. "2+2=4" -- this is a conclusion that was derived from observation. But our mind "sees" why it is so, and it would not understand if, suddenly, "2+2=5". This is a very important point. If someone "proved" that 2+2=5, out idea of the Universe would crumble, and we would be forced to admit that everything we ever thought and did is a product of luck. And that there is no reason to believe that our luck will hold. We will not be able to get up tomorrow, for "up" may become "down" in a moment. The light of our reason has detected a pattern in the Universe that is independent from ourselves. We can't force it to change with our wishful thinking.

Mathematics is just a very old example of absolute truth. There are others. And people who believe in God think that the fact that God is absolute truth, just as 2+2=4. In fact, they believe that God is absolute truth -- that the truth in 2+2=4 is derived from God. I am one of these believers... but this lies a long way down our road.

Finally, about the passage that baffled you. Pure Thought can work in the abstract. You can imagine, for instance, a computer "thinking". (Though this would bring a big dispute about the definition of this word...). But no one can imagine a computer "wanting" something. Volition, will, is a very important part of our beings, of our humanity, and it disproves the idea that there is nothing out there. For if we want something, it is clear we don't have it. And if reality is simply a construct of our imagination, and therefore nothing is out there, then there can be no wanting -- everything would be "inside us". We would have everything.

I hope this helped ;).

[Gandalf White]

I hope this helped . Yes, but I'll need to read it over numerous times in order to completely grasp the full content. (And I mean numerous) ;) :eek:

[Aiwendil2]

Eriol wrote:

I find it interesting that the reasoning used to deny that Jesus existed is quite parallel with the one used to deny evolution, but of course people who use the first do not accept the second, and vice versa.

I have never heard any scholar seriously suggest that Jesus never existed. Whom do you have in mind when you say that evolutionists argue against his existence?

Of course, there is always the possibility of error with regard to information on the lives of historical figures. We have significantly less hard evidence concerning the life of Jesus than we do concerning Julius Caesar, or George Washington. But the evidence for his existence seems to me to be quite strong, if not as strong as the more empirically confirmable matter of evolution.

So the hypothesis "our brains are defective" defeats itself, for it dooms everyday life.

Not necessarily. It is quite possible to know a thing and yet not to act under the influence of that knowledge. Suppose I knew my understanding of logic to be flawed. What would I do? What could I do? Surely I would simply go on living as I live (though perhaps more uneasily). So certainly the mere possibility that the rules of logic are not universal is not ruled out by the fact that our actions seem to be based on those rules of logic.

since how could we find out that the brains are defective if they are defective?

But you very rightly pointed out the distinction between ontology and epistemology just before. Certainly our brains could be defective, regardless of whether or not that fact is epistemologically accessible to us. And even that need not be the case: a defect in my brain could take any number of forms, only a small subset of which would entail that I not be able to conceive of the defect.

our brains are, in fact, equipped to deal with the universe.

How can we know that when we don't even have any way of knowing that there is a universe for our brains to deal with?

So, there is truth "out there". That there is something "out there" is quite obvious, for our logic can only work with the data from the senses -- the very words we use for thinking are derived from data from the senses.

The fact that we experience sensory data does not entail that there is an external world. I can imagine a perfectly coherent universe that consists of nothing but a sequence of states of consciousness/sensory states, with no ontological entities apart from that sequence.

If someone "proved" that 2+2=5, out idea of the Universe would crumble, and we would be forced to admit that everything we ever thought and did is a product of luck.

You seem to be assuming that there are two separate processes here: 1. our intuition, which says things like "2+2=4" and 2. mathematical proofs, which prove that "2+2=4". Your argument seems to be that 2, the proof, confirms that 1, our intuitions are correct. But surely there is no real distinction between 1 and 2. That is, surely our intuition that 2+2=4 is merely a very simplistic proof. Conversely, complex mathematical proofs are merely extensions of the "intuition" used to obtain 2+2=4. So you cannot argue that mathematical proofs confirm our intuitive understanding of mathematics - that is tautalogical.

The light of our reason has detected a pattern in the Universe that is independent from ourselves. We can't force it to change with our wishful thinking.

But our reason has not confirmed (nor can it) that such a pattern is outside of ourselves. What we have epistemological access to is only the sense data pattern itself. We have no epistemic access to "the real universe" beyond that sense data. Note that the mere fact that we cannot control the sense data through an exercise of will in no way indicates that the data must have a source outside of our consciousness. There are many cognitive processes that we do not control; and even were this not so, there would be no proof that such a process cannot exist.

But no one can imagine a computer "wanting" something. Volition, will, is a very important part of our beings, of our humanity, and it disproves the idea that there is nothing out there.

I can imagine a computer "wanting" something to exactly the same extent that I can imagine another human "wanting" something. That is, I cannot actually experience the desire consciously, but I can certainly imagine either the person or the computer (if it were provided with the physical means of acting) acting toward the desired end. That is, to be more precise, I can imagine personal sense data corresponding to the thing in question, whether human or android, seeking the desired object (or expressing a desire for it, etc.).

For if we want something, it is clear we don't have it.

Not necessarily. I want a pepsi right now. I also happen to have one right in front of me. This is a fortunate situation, and I am of course less likely to become distressed by my desire, or to make my desire apparent. But the desire remains, just the same.

But even supposing that we can only want things that we do not have: this still does not prove the existence of an outside world. In fact, it would seem that what we want is not some actual external thing, but rather a certain sensory state. If I want a pepsi, what I want is not an external thing in itself; what I want is the sensory state corresponding to having the pepsi in front of me, to drinking it, etc. Indeed, we could not want an external thing, since we have no epistemic access to such a thing. Moreover, if desire did have some external thing as its object, no desire could ever be fulfilled, again because we have no epistemic access to such a thing.

And if reality is simply a construct of our imagination, and therefore nothing is out there, then there can be no wanting -- everything would be "inside us". We would have everything.

We could (and do!) desire sensory states.

Sorry to jump into the middle of this conversation in such an argumentative mood, but I've been working on a paper on positivism for a class and thus this topic rather piqued my interest.

[Eriol]

You're welcome! I wonder if you really believe in what you are saying or if you are just playing Devil's Advocate for strict positivism :D.

Sure logic can't get us out of the problem. (I thought I said that somewhere -- if I didn't I am saying it now ;) ). Pure reason, without some belief, reaches a dead end. The problem with pure, radical rationalism is precisely that -- it cannot work without data, and it can not draw data except from some dubious source such as our senses and our intuition. So it disproves itself and stands paralyzed as the proverbial deer in the middle of the road. Your objections are a very good example of the dead end reached by pure reason. Most of them are rationally correct, but are existentially wrong -- we know, by some strange faculty that we could explore further, that they are wrong. I called it "common sense", above, but it can also be called "intuition", "individual human experience", etc. It is a leap of faith, if we examine it closely -- but a very natural, intuitive one, and people do not usually attach the word "faith" to something like it.

"Faith" in everyday speak is related to a belief that is "optional", that is, not forced by data. But if we examine the source of data -- the senses + intuition -- it is clear that they are not forced by data, and therefore are in the terrain of faith. In plain words, we have to believe that what we see is the truth. If "seeing is believing", prior to "seeing" the individual must believe the assertion itself. Sure, we all believe it without much speculation, and that is why the use of the word "faith" in such a context can be misguiding.

The way out of the conundrum is "existential". It is derived from our experience as human beings. And this is also the refutation of your assertion that the computer can "want" as we do. Sure, I can program a computer to act "as if" he wanted something. It can be a perfect masquerade. But the experience of the programmed computer is not akin to that of a human being. For the computer is programmed to want some things, and not others, while human beings want different things at different moments, following no program.

The main difference is that human beings want to question the program itself. Think about that sentence and you will see the amazing gap between humans and computers. What we are doing right now is this, questioning the program. Not accepting the assumptions in our program -- instincts, senses, etc. Show me a computer that can do that and I will be forced to retract my views.

Look at your example of the pepsi. When you want a pepsi, you do not want it "by your side", you want to gulp it down. To say that your want is satisfied by having it at hand is simply saying that you wanted to look at it, or perhaps to feel it in your hands, but not to gulp it down. Wanting is always of something we don't have, or it wouldn't be wanting. If you desire a sip of pepsi, and you have one in front of you, you take a sip. If you don't, then you don't want it. (Assuming free agency -- that there is no one with a gun in your head daring you to take a sip, for instance :eek: )

Each one of your objections is worthy of a detailed study, but I'm not sure this is the right place to do it... and surely not the right time (I'm quite sleepy :) ). I'll look at the first and the last then (Skipping the Jesus bit -- I never claimed any scholars disbelieved in Jesus's existence, I was answering MD, who did question his existence).

How would you know your logic is flawed? Surely you would apply a logical test to this conclusion to chech whether it is correct or not, right? How can you do that with flawed logic? When you know something (I liked your emphasis, the argument is especially convincing with this emphasis), you have tested it with your logic. Remember, we are talking about relations between concepts here, not the concepts themselves. Reasoning, not perception/apprehension. You may have a very misguided idea of concept A, completely different from what A is in reality, but as soon as you look at your concept of A, in your mind, you see that it can't be non-A at the same time. This is a relationship between A and non-A that is immediately grasped by the mind, what you called the rules of logic. And these can't be disproved by logic -- or we would have a self-contradiction, logic being disproved by logic. And self-contradictions are impossible because of the rules of logic... and so on... this is how our minds work. It is a given. If we reallydisbelieve that (for sure we can), we stop functioning and die. There is a strong distinction in what I am saying between a carefree "disbelieving", that is said in an hypothetical way, and real disbelief, one which entails a proportional shift in our actions.

The mind and the individual can't really be detached... though this is the result of "pure" rationalism. But the individual knows best, and it knows that it can follow reason and get to a good result, as long as reason's rules are not questioned existentially. We can play around with the idea that they are not true, but if we BELIEVE that, we stop any and all reasoning and function immediately.

And the last objection, about sensory states. Of course we desire sensory states. But my argument rested on the point that we desired other things besides that... Things outside ourselves; as well as sensory states. A prime example is the difference between memory and actual experience. We want to experience a good thing, not just remember it. The memory of a pepsi is not the same as a pepsi. Why is that so? Why shouldn't it be the same if it's all "inside"?

*yawn* Sorry to stop here... I hope to hear more from you ;).

[Flame of Udûn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michel Delving
[B]Click here: Don't bother reading it all. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-654506,00.html) just the bit that starts:- As a big fan of Tolkein I believe...

Obviously not a big enough fan to spell his name correctly.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Nóm
How can we know that this isn't a part of us... we each know two kinds of Pepsi... the "real" and the imagined or memory. Assumng neither realy exists, we can still explain this ability for one to seem real and the other not, by saying that the reasons for the same mechanisms that allow us to perceive a real Pepsi, must be doing it for our own enjoyment. What would be the use of all of these senses... our life... if a memory was as a real thing.

Our selfs could well do this for their own enjoyment, just as they want a Pepsi for our own enjoyment.
I might even say that getting a thing one wants is good to us because it fulfils that want, if memory were as the "real" thing, this would not be so. It would leave us with no reason to have the real thing. Having no real thing, we would not know a thing in memory or make things with imagination.
But, could we get satisfactions from a Pepsi if we didnt want it first?


I'm not sure I understood this correctly... but surely you see that we do not create our own memories. The use of all these senses, and life, as regards memory, is to provide data. We do not remember jumping off a cliff and surviving. We may imagine it, but it is not the same thing. Memory of a given thing is not something we are born with, it is something we acquire. From where? From ourselves? Then why can't we acquire the memory of being rich, of winning the Olympics, of a life together with our true love... Even if we forsake "real life" to live dreaming of that, we would -- still -- want to see this really fulfilled, as opposed to fulfilled in a dream. This word "really" in the sentence makes a big difference for us.

As you said, Nóm, you tinkered with the idea of logic being false. This "tinkering" was done logically. Or it was no tinkering. You thought "what if... then" propositions. This is something within our grasp (and the major difference between us and computers as regrads thought), but to accept that logic is false with all of your being, and not only with a portion of your mind, would take you to a world in which you could not even type your farewell to us ;).

As a second line of argument, I offer words, themselves. Where do they come from? We are not born with words. Yet we think with them. (I know there are spatial thinkers and word-based thinkers, but I am aiming at another level of "thought". Spatial thinkers "translate" their thoughts into words, automatically.)

Words, the very fabric of our thoughts, are not something that we create. They are given to us from the "outside".

Keep in mind that these arguments in favor of real life, of a real outside, and of real logic are not foolproof. Pure logic can always reach a state in which it denies that. These arguments are of a persuasive nature, an almost probabilistic nature. They are appealing not to logic, but to another part of ourselves which I called common sense. The option of refusing common sense and accepting only pure logic is always open.

But it's not forced upon us -- it's not logical ;). Neither one of the options is logical, in th sense of forced upon us as "2+2=4". A choice is imposed upon us, a choice of what to believe: reality or insanity. (These are words that describe the two states, with no judgment of value imposed on them. Insanity might well be better or more true than reality).

But I do say that there is no middle ground. If you believe in insanity, you are insane (again, just a convenient word to describe your status). If you don't, you are a reality-based person. But toying with the idea of insanity, while using the rules of logic, is something a reality-based person does. That's what I want to emphasize: THINKING about the possibility of no reality out there is something that a real person does. ACTING as if there were no reality, well, that's a different story.

[Michel Delving]

This is turning into a game of cerebral chess!

Either I’m being overly simplistic or your all being overly intellectual but my ideas seem very basic next to the mind bending barrage of observations you are all pouring into the mix.

I think a summary is in order before and if we move on. No doubt my breakdown of points will produce another glut of responses saying I’ve mistaken what you’ve said. Lets hope so!

The story so far…

I said: Good and Evil do not exist except as concepts created by Man.

Then Gandalf White, YayGollum, Mithlond and HLGStrider brought the Christian God and LotR’s Characters into the discussion. They felt the world of LotR was reflected in the real world and that Good, God, Evil and Satan existed as a force outside of us, supernatural if you like. Then much debate ensued regarding the nature of Man and Evil, Eru and Good, God and Good, Melkor and Evil etc.

I then reiterated my point that God, Good, The Devil, Evil are creations of Man. Words used to define the internal conflicts of a Human Being. As words, ideas and concepts they do not exist outside of our perception and creation of them.

Eriol then said this idea did not prove that these things don’t exist. Eriol also believed in a force outside of us named God that did exist.

We then went off on Jesus tangent and a God dead end. Nobody seems to want to entertain the idea that God (a jolly yet vengeful, all knowing, all wise man with a big white beard in the sky) doesn’t exist, or that Jesus might just be a character in a story.

We were then directed back to Tolkien by Nóm who used a good quote to say that Good and Evil are relative, up to the individual.

I then said that existence is what we perceive as an individual. Outside of us is everyone else's existence. I used the image of the Universe as a circle whose circumference is so large it becomes a straight line. This was Nicholas Cusa’s idea. He used it to describe infinity (The Universe). He also said the centre of the infinite circle is everywhere. Everyone is the centre of their own Universe and the boundaries of this universe are infinite and unknowable.

HLGStrider then said Darwin was as equally theoretical as the Bible if you wanted to look at like that, which she didn’t (in relation to God, not Darwin).

Eriol then disagreed with my idea of existence. I still stay Existence is only what you perceive, everything you don’t perceive is everybody else’s perception of reality. How can two people's view of the world be the same when they exist independently, it’s impossible. Two people looking at a tree won’t see it the same tree because they will see it with their own perception of a tree. It may invoke memories that the other person doesn’t have, be viewed at a different angle, be viewed by a mind talking to itself in a different language, be viewed by a carpenter, be viewed by an ecologist, be viewed by a child, be viewed by Tolkien who calls it an Ent. The tree is a different tree to every one of them. The tree itself doesn’t know it’s a tree. It may exist as a physical entity but it doesn’t exist as a tree.

Gone off summary mode there, sorry.

Then we agreed that Jesus existed as a person though I would argue that it doesn’t matter if he did or not.

I can conceive a world in which a self-contradicting statement is true, Eriol. You hit the nail head of my idea. I also believe everything is inside us and that is how we understand ourselves and the world. Everything outside is reflected inside but the outside is an illusion created by us because it is multi-formed by millions of minds. It may exist in itself but it does not exist as we perceive it. We can’t grasp what it us because it’s as big as a circle that’s a straight line.

Then Aiwendil2 succesfully argued an oppsing point to Eriol. This was great argument against the existence of Outside of Us and its illusory nature, even if it did exist.

Eriol then said Aiwendil2’s argument was too based on reason alone and that humans are far more complex, self aware and self-questioning. Humans are the only self-conscious being.

We then discussed real and imaginary Pepsi.


So overall - God may or may not exist. Reality may or may not exist. Good and Evil may be just words created to define and create the stability inherent in a civilized society; or they may be graceful angels and demonic horned beasts. Humans believe whatever they like. People may be right or wrong in their opinions; it doesn’t matter because it’s all relative.

I think we had also better mention Lord of the Rings again before we get exiled for being off the topic appropriate to this area of the forum.

So, here goes: THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

That’s better.

[Aiwendil2]

Eriol wrote:

I wonder if you really believe in what you are saying or if you are just playing Devil's Advocate for strict positivism

I'm actually not a positivist. Well, not exactly. I do think that positivism offers some very convincing arguments, and that there is much to be learned from it.

Pure reason, without some belief, reaches a dead end. The problem with pure, radical rationalism is precisely that -- it cannot work without data, and it can not draw data except from some dubious source such as our senses and our intuition.

I agree, pure reason does not allow us to make any interesting statements or claims about the world. But that fact is far from a directive to start making leaps of faith. It's true that pure reason doesn't get us much of anywhere - but before we go any further, we must acknowledge, clearly and honestly, that we are no longer working with pure reason. That is, when we start admitting things like sensory data and trying to work out patterns and laws, we must always remember that we are not on firm ground in doing so. And, most importantly, we can limit the number of such guarded leaps of faith. It is one thing to cautiously assume that I can trust my own sensory data, and start looking for patterns in it. It is quite another thing to make a further leap of faith and say that my sensory data corresponds to actual ontological entities that are distinct from me. And it is yet another thing to transmute these assumptions into certainties and claim that there must be ontological entities outside of me.

we know, by some strange faculty that we could explore further, that they are wrong.

I think not. We know, in the strictest sense, nothing apart from "Cogito, ergo sum."

In plain words, we have to believe that what we see is the truth.

Again, we don't have to believe it. We can certainly work based on that assumption, but we must not forget that it is just that - an assumption which is possibly in error. And we certainly cannot make the claim that what we see is certainly the truth.

And this is also the refutation of your assertion that the computer can "want" as we do. Sure, I can program a computer to act "as if" he wanted something. It can be a perfect masquerade. But the experience of the programmed computer is not akin to that of a human being. For the computer is programmed to want some things, and not others, while human beings want different things at different moments, following no program.


On this point I must rather strongly disagree. Humans are computers. Human desires are explicable in terms of neural processes. A sufficiently sophisticated computer could easily want different things at different moments. Any claim to the effect that human brain activity is not a function of neural impulses goes rather against all that is known about neural science. Moreover, it is an unprovable, even unconfirmable and untestable, claim the acceptance of which involves a leap of faith far beyond the one we were discussing above.

It would be quite a separate thing to argue that computers, unlike human brains, are not conscious of their own activity. Note that here "conscious" is not synonymous with "cognizant" - a computer could certainly be cognizant of its own activity; that is, the facts regarding all of its activities could be stored in its memory and made available to it in the future. By "consciousness" is meant that profound asymmetry that I observe between my own mind and everything else. It is quite possible to imagine that a computer, though it acts to the contrary, is not conscious. But it is possible to exactly the same degree to imagine that other humans, though they act to the contrary, are not conscious.

The main difference is that human beings want to question the program itself.

A computer could certainly be constructed that questions its own programming. It would have to be quite complex, but, as I said above, the human brain is an example of such a computer.

Look at your example of the pepsi. When you want a pepsi, you do not want it "by your side", you want to gulp it down.

I was being vague and careless in my language. Substitute "drinking the pepsi" for "having the pepsi in front of me" in my example. That is: even as I am experiencing the taste, I still desire the taste. It is precisely that combination that makes the experience satisfying.

But that is beside the point. The main point is that what I desire is not the pepsi in itself; what I desire is the sensory experience of tasting the pepsi. In fact, I would be completely unable to distinguish the mere sensory experience from the sensory experience plus the actual fact of consuming the drink - because my only epistemic access to the actual fact is the sensory experience.

How would you know your logic is flawed? Surely you would apply a logical test to this conclusion to chech whether it is correct or not, right? How can you do that with flawed logic?

You're right, I can never know that my logic is flawed. But no more can I know that it is not flawed.

If we reallydisbelieve that (for sure we can), we stop functioning and die. There is a strong distinction in what I am saying between a carefree "disbelieving", that is said in an hypothetical way, and real disbelief, one which entails a proportional shift in our actions.


I'm a little confused about your insistence on the word "disbelief". I am not talking about believing or disbelieving anything, if "believing" is understand (as it usually is) to mean "accepting unquestionably as true". But what I am saying is also not your "carefree disbelieving"; that is, just sort of saying something without really meaning it. What I am saying is that neither absolute belief nor absolute disbelief is possible. To decide that no external world exists and stop acting at all would be just as absurd as deciding on the truth of any proposition and then acting as if that proposition were known to be true. Remember, we cannot know anything other than "I think, therefore I am" - we can neither know that logic is flawed nor that it isn't.

But the individual knows best, and it knows that it can follow reason and get to a good result

No, it does not know that it can follow reason and get a good result. I have no way of knowing that reason will not suddenly stop working tomorrow.

We can play around with the idea that they are not true, but if we BELIEVE that, we stop any and all reasoning and function immediately.


Again - I am not proposing that we believe anything absolutely. But I am also not proposing that we merely "play around" with ideas about skepticism.

But my argument rested on the point that we desired other things besides that... Things outside ourselves; as well as sensory states.

I don't see how we possibly could desire things besides sensory states (by which I include thought and emotion states - all purely internal, conscious states). How can I desire a thing in itself if I have no epistemic access whatsoever to that thing? It is impossible to distinguish between a sensory state without an ontological entity behind it and a sensory state with such an entity. This seems self-evident, since our only epistemic access to anything is through sensory states.

A prime example is the difference between memory and actual experience. We want to experience a good thing, not just remember it. The memory of a pepsi is not the same as a pepsi. Why is that so? Why shouldn't it be the same if it's all "inside"?


The mental state of a memory is quite different from the mental state of an actual experience - and in a way completely explicable through neural science. That is, a memory and an actual experience simply represent two distinct sensory/conscious states. But both are conscious states.

Michel Delving:

To address your original point, I agree that good and evil, God and Satan, are inventions of humans.

Of course, this does not prove that they don't exist (remember, we can't prove anything). But it does mean that we really ought to stop blindly insisting that they do exist, and being intolerant of each other because some people don't choose to blindly accept these propositions, or (even worse) choose to blindly accept propositions that are slightly different from ours; and maybe we should even be openminded and willing to assess other people's ideas based on their own purely rational merits rather than based on these blindly irrational convictions.

Seriously, though - I think that whether good and evil (or right and wrong, if you prefer less melodramatic terms) actually exist outside of human invention is still up in the air. The fact is that even people who claim that there is no such thing as good or evil still act as if there are. Most of us, even those who think that good and evil are nothing more than human conventions, are still perfectly willing to condemn Hitler and Osama bin Laden on purely moral grounds.

Of course, the argument I just made has no actual rational force.

Nonetheless (and perhaps I am being naively optimistic) I still hold out some hope that there are grounds for a purely rational moral system.

[HLGStrider]

Don't have time to read this now, so I'll do it later, but I just had a quick comment. . .

Either I’m being overly simplistic or your all being overly intellectual but my ideas seem very basic next to the mind bending barrage of observations you are all pouring into the mix

The way I think it is is you are making a statement and we are argueing over the statement, so it is reasonable that we are longer and more "intellectual."

For instance if I were to make a statement:

Bush is a good president (I'm using this one because of the differing views on the forum. I don't want to discuss it here).

What would the replies be?

VERY few would be simply,
Bush is not a good president. That isn't debate. Debate is where someone makes a statement and people pick it appart or support it with lots of differing things.

Just imagine how complicated that discussion would be about a man. . .and we are talking about something a lot bigger then men.

[Eriol]

I will address some side issues before getting back to business. First, to our newest moderator: How do we direct people to such a specific portion of a thread as you just did? You can answer that by PM, I think...

The thread itself is very intriguing, and it helped me to understand what Aiwendil2 is saying -- or so I believe (hehe).

Now, back to business:

Eriol then disagreed with my idea of existence. I still stay Existence is only what you perceive, everything you don’t perceive is everybody else’s perception of reality. How can two people's view of the world be the same when they exist independently, it’s impossible. Two people looking at a tree won’t see it the same tree because they will see it with their own perception of a tree. It may invoke memories that the other person doesn’t have, be viewed at a different angle, be viewed by a mind talking to itself in a different language, be viewed by a carpenter, be viewed by an ecologist, be viewed by a child, be viewed by Tolkien who calls it an Ent. The tree is a different tree to every one of them. The tree itself doesn’t know it’s a tree. It may exist as a physical entity but it doesn’t exist as a tree.

Posted by Michel Delving.

I could almost clap when I read that. It is very much what I believe too. And this is very intriguing, since it begins with "Eriol disagreed". This is a very difficult topic, and I probably did not express myself correctly.

Sure the concept "tree" is something that exists in minds, not in nature. But I am not defending the real existence of concepts. I am defending the existence of the object, of the thing that produced the sensory response that our minds, which is translated as "tree".

MD, to say that good and evil are "just words" is begging the question. What is a word? Is it a thing that does not exist? Sure they are words, but do they refer to something else? The denial of the referent is quite fashionable in some linguistic philosophies, that say that language is either scientific or tautological, but the "tautology" to which they refer is very important (Check Wittgenstein if you are really interested on that, though I do not recommend it :D).

I'm not talking about signs in writing, or the sounds we use to transmit sound. I am talking about the Word, the Logos in our own mind. When we think (and out thought must be taken as a given, check Descartes and Aiwendil2), we think in words. Please note, I'm not saying we think with words, we think in words. And these words, called by some philosophers The Word (and it is in this sense, as an analogy, that Jesus is the Word -- God "thought" the Universe in Jesus), are real things in our thought. We have to explain their origin and their relation with sensory data before doing away with the outside reality. Indeed, we could not do away with outside reality without words! And it is also in this sense that I say that denial of logic and reality is the end of life and function -- for it forcefully means the end of the Logos. That is why I don't believe you (sorry) when you say that you can, indeed, conceive of a world without logic. For "conception" itself, even of this non-logical world, uses logic. It is as you said that, using the rules of logic (for conceiving necessarily does that), you discovered that 2 plus 2 equals 5.

If you really believe that, as opposed to just saying that, then you are a wonderful creature, for I can't understand it. And for sure I can't argue with you regarding that. It may be (and probably it is) my own fault, but as certain as 2 plus 2 equals 4 I will never understand it. I can only wish you well, then.

Now, Aiwendil2, as I said above that other thread helped me understand your point better. And I think we are really debating over words and not concepts. For you say that you are "so sure that reality is a good gamble that you act as it is apodictically true" (I am paraphrasing -- apodictically true means "true without any doubt whatsoever"). And I talk about a "leap of faith". I really don't see much of a difference. As I emphasized (or so I thought :o ), there is no logical reason for us to make this leap of faith, or as you said, we don't stand in firm ground when we do so. We might as well not make it -- and enter what I called the world of insanity. There is no logical, a priori reason for us to choose one world over the other.

This is reflected in many of your objections. So, I say that we must "believe" that seeing is believing, that what we see is the truth, and you say "No, we must not believe that, but we can work on that assumption". This is pretty much what I meant by the word "believe". Sorry if it was misleading. When I said we "must" believe, this is not apodictical "must", nor logical "must", but rather existential "must" -- if we don't do that we fall outside of human experience.

The bulk of my arguments was not intended to prove by force of reason that "reality" is better or more logical than "insanity", as I put them in one of my posts. Rather, it is intended to show that the alternative to "reality" is "insanity". To show, fully, what it means to deny reality. When we are debating it is very well to toy with the idea, but in life we do not do that, rightly or wrongly. "Insanity", the world I am attempting to describe, is so alien that we have an innate rejection to it (and this is very interesting when you examine the idea that man was created by God -- He did not give us reason alone, he gave us other things, without a proper name perhaps. And it is one of those things that rejects "insanity").

About computers x humans. Do you really think you can program a computer to question his program? Wouldn't it be following the program if it did that, then? I assume, of course, that this activity we are engaged in -- philosophy -- is in fact questioning the program, and not simply a pleasant pastime. We all must answer this question, inwardly.

About desiring sensory states x desiring things. The source of confusion here is the pair "things : concepts", as well as "perceiving : conceiving". Refer back to the discussion of the tree, so well written by MD. We do not wish the pepsi "in itself", we desire the concept of drinking a pepsi. In this concept there is A LOT of other concepts included -- thirst, cold temperature, sweetness, and perhaps other thing such as "being fashionable" (if we believe the ads :D). But we desire the unique mix of concepts involved in drinking a pepsi. This mix of concepts changes with the individual and the situation. No one can describe the taste of pepsi, any more than he can describe "blue". The first apprehensions are undefinable.

I have already written a lot, otherwise I would discuss what I think is the prime example of the interaction between the individual mind and reality: a rainbow. If you want to indulge in that...

Finally, about the "Cogito". I think a better translation of that word in Descartes would be "Doubt": "I doubt, therefore I am". For he was founding his philosophy in the doubt of every other concept, and the root of his doubts was himself -- this is the context of the phrase. I have always thought Descartes used a little sleight of hand there. For we cannot doubt without having the options in front of us. In this thread, for instance, there have been two main point of views defended: The ontological character of reality (mine) and the epistemological character of reality (yours). But one can't have a doubt between this two points of view before perceiving them, and even more, without conceiving them in our own minds. And therefore "I doubt, therefore I am" can't be the first sentence in the epistemological journey -- it presupposed "yes", and "no", as well as the thing being doubted.

Doubt is not a permanent state. It keeps coming back and forth between two options.

This is just a side note in the issue being argued...

[Beleg]

The bulk of my arguments was not intended to prove by force of reason that "reality" is better or more logical than "insanity", as I put them in one of my posts. Rather, it is intended to show that the alternative to "reality" is "insanity".


Can you clarify the point a bit more?

How can two people's view of the world be the same when they exist independently, it’s impossible. Two people looking at a tree won’t see it the same tree because they will see it with their own perception of a tree.

Two things come in this point.
A general view and an individual view.
I feel that the general view of two people can be the same, like two people can admire a "golden cup", that's the general view, while both of these people have different things to admire about the "golden cup." Each of them being their own individual views.
I statement can be agreed upon by everyone, because everyone has various or sometimes same motives which cause them to believe that the statement is correct.
And the minds of two people can work upon the same line but that doesn't always happen and depend upon the situation...
Every person precives very differently, not exactly the same, it is not possible, yet the result of their preciving can be the same, and thus they can agree on a matter.
i know this is not exactly contradicting your point before the mention of trees, since you only said that two people precieve differently, perhaps your motive in saying that was something else, but i felt from it that perhaps you were implying that two men cannot bring forth same idea's because there preciving of a matter might be different, they might take different ways to achieve a motive.

And their are things who points are so singular, so individual, so clearcut that they instantly bring the same point in the mind of every person. People precieve it the same way.
2+2=4. Everyone will precieve it the same way.
By My statement "He was a fool" everyone will get an impression that i dislike the person, and that would be their precieving in the general sense.
Two people can't think exactly alike, in everyway, that's physically and mentally impossible, so we have to take what can be possible, and I think that if two people take the same view about something, we can say that their preception was common, for the results they achieved were the same and they were thinking along the same lines.

Sure the concept "tree" is something that exists in minds, not in nature. But I am not defending the real existence of concepts. I am defending the existence of the object, of the thing that produced the sensory response that our minds, which is translated as "tree".
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence or defence thereof.
But
The real existance of the "tree" is but what we see it as. It is nothing different from what we think of it in our mind. Existance o anything is what our mind see it as. And minds work differently. A person might completelyt overlook the existance of a small thing lying on the road while another person might pick it up and examine it for he might believe it is important while the former might be completely oblivious to it. It is what our mind thinks. The existance of the substance is based upon our mind, the existance of a substance will be presented to us as our mind takes it.
For example a person might scold the child who had hit him with a ball and another person might laugh and shake off the matter.
The fact was that the matter existed, that the ball was hit at us, but our minds precieved it the different way, because according to the knowledge stuffed in them, they were meant to give different decisions.


And it is also in this sense that I say that denial of logic and reality is the end of life and function

The bulk of my arguments was not intended to prove by force of reason that "reality" is better or more logical than "insanity",

Somehow I think that these statements contradict eachother. Believe it or not, our principal aim in this world is to live and if denial of logic and reality which in other words is insainty is the end of life, then how could Reality not be better then insainty?

P.S: Thanks a lot Nom! That thread also answered some of my questions about another topic that i brought up in the Silmarillion thread! :)


The way I think it is is you are making a statement and we are argueing over the statement, so it is reasonable that we are longer and more "intellectual."

For instance if I were to make a statement:

Bush is a good president (I'm using this one because of the differing views on the forum. I don't want to discuss it here).

What would the replies be?

VERY few would be simply,
Bush is not a good president. That isn't debate. Debate is where someone makes a statement and people pick it appart or support it with lots of differing things.

Just imagine how complicated that discussion would be about a man. . .and we are talking about something a lot bigger then men).

People will also argue whether Bush is a good president or not. It would also be a debate. People would try to reason out why Bush isn't a good president or vice-versa. So saying that people won't argue whether Bush is a good president or not, IMHO is not exactly correct.

[Eriol]

I think Elgee was trying to explain why the posts in this thread are so long and complex, for MD was saying that he felt he (MD) was being overly simplistic while people were saying a lot. She was saying that since it is MD's propositions are under dispute, it is natural that other people's posts are bigger. If he had said "Bush is a good president", his post would be short, and ours would be also big... Her example had nothing to do with Bush himself, only with the nature of an argument.

About insanity x reality. One of my main points that I should explain more is that our relationship with reality (be it a construct of our minds or a "real" reality) is not a simple thing. There are several steps in, for instance, our observation of a tree:

1) Sensory data. We are bombarded by sensory data constantly. I will restrict the argument to sight, but it happens with all senses. Our eyes have no discrimination about what they see or not. They see everything in their sight. And this means Everything. Which takes us to our second point.

2) Discrimination. This is one of the brain's functions, and a very important one. There are people with cerebral defects (usually as a result of accidents) who lose this ability. The result is permanent confusion. For instance, as I type here, my eyes focus mainy on the keyboard and screen. A person without discriminating ability would see disjointed keys, and not "a keyboard", for his eyes would wander from one key to the other; he would have great difficulty in following the screen, for what appears on it would have the same "weight", in his mind, as the monitor, or the mouse... I think "discrimination" is clear enough.

3) Perception. This is a feature that unifies the senses, in the identification of "something". Take our tree. When we see, with all the senses, that it is a single object, we perceive it -- as opposed to perceiving it's size, color, leaves, etc.

4) Conception. This is the last step. When we create an idea corresponding to that particular tree, so that we can "access it" in years hence, we have conceived of it. This is a very active step, as opposed to the first one. We create the idea. The first tree we ever saw was an idea created as this. Later, we create another idea, the idea of the general "tree", so that we can draw general "trees", and identify a drawing that, in the face of it, is COMPLETELY different from a tree with a "tree".

A mark of conception is that it is accompanied by a word. It need not be the word used by people. But you can't conceive anything without having a word for it, even if it is your own, private word. Language as a means of communication appears only later, when you learn that what you had called, say, "hexterabonto" is called by other persons "a tree".

Of course, you conceived many more things than just "tree". Probably you conceived of "bark", "leaf", "high", and created your own words before learning the proper ones. You could say, approaching another tree, 'the "skin" of this tree is different!' (But only if you already had the concept of skin). The use of a metaphor goes to show that you not only conceived of "bark", but that you also saw its analogy with "skin".

Later on, as you become endowed with a huge store of concepts, you can play around with them and conceive of things that are not. But to do that you must have, not only the concepts, but the words that signify them.

My point about reality x insanity is that steps 4 and 3, and in a sense 2, are completely dependent on logic. There is no compelling logical reason for us to accept logic, but if we don't, then we have to doubt everything we have achieved under steps 4, 3 and 2. I think "insanity", in the current usage of the word, describes the situation accurately.

Finally, I agree with you Beleg when you conclude that reality is better than "insanity". But this judgment of ours is not a logical one. You say that life is our main goal in this world. This is not a logical proposition, as much as I agree with it. My point in comparing reality x "insanity" is that the choice is not logical, it is existential. You see in this thread MD, Aiwendil and perhaps Nóm defending the idea that since the rules of logic are not liable of logical proof, we may as well not believe in them. Their conclusion is a logical one. But if they take it seriously, they will have to face "insanity".

Simply, the word "better" in the beginning of the last paragraph is a matter of opinion, and if we try to convince other people that it is logically better, we will fail. The choice is open to all of us, reality or "insanity". And this is not the first instance of "choice" as an important feature in the philosophical journey... Logical Positivism has almost to deny the existence of "choice", since it accepts only logic as a standard, and there is no choice where logic is involved. We can't choose the result of 2+2, it is 4 whatever we think of it. But there is choice involved in our lives in (at least) three major spheres: aesthetical, ethical, religious. A Vulcan must also choose in these spheres. (But this is off the subject).

[Aiwendil2]

Eriol wrote:
MD, to say that good and evil are "just words" is begging the question.

I think the point here is not quite that good and evil are "just words" as it is that they are "just inventions". The relevant question is whether good and evil have some existence outside of our invention of them.

So, I say that we must "believe" that seeing is believing, that what we see is the truth, and you say "No, we must not believe that, but we can work on that assumption". This is pretty much what I meant by the word "believe".

Ah, I understand. There is an unfortunate double meaning to the word "believe"; it might be characterized as the difference between "believing that" and "believing in" - that is, one can "believe that" a certain proposition is true and still leave room for doubt, but if one 'believes in" the truth of that proposition, one generally accepts it absolutely and to the exclusion of any evidence to the contrary.

When I said we "must" believe, this is not apodictical "must", nor logical "must", but rather existential "must" -- if we don't do that we fall outside of human experience.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "human experience". Surely, regardless of what we believe or don't believe, our sensory data and fundamental drives will remain the same. But perhaps you mean that if we don't act as if logic is valid, we will be unable to function in society. And that would seem true to me.

Rather, it is intended to show that the alternative to "reality" is "insanity".

If you mean that the alternative to an ontologically realist view is insanity, I must disagree. One could easily take a positivist view and continue to function normally. All we are able to experience is our sensory states, so whether those states correspond to an external reality or not should not affect our actions at all. To use the Pepsi example: even if I'm a positivist and really believe that there is no actual can of pepsi in my hand, I'll still drink it. From my point of view, it doesn't matter whether the pepsi is real or not, since either way, my experience is exactly the same.

Rejection of logic is different, though; if one rejects this (including the logic of confirmation), then one will cease to function well. So in our actions, it is best to assume that logic and reason hold, and even best to assume that our process of confirmation is justified. But if we are talking philosophically, if the very question we're interested in is whether such things are rationally justified, then we must not make that assumption. One cannot that because we make the assumption, it is true.

About computers x humans. Do you really think you can program a computer to question his program?

Quite certainly. We are such computers. If we were to make a normal computer of sufficient complexity, there is no reason it could not do anything that the human brain can do.

In this concept there is A LOT of other concepts included -- thirst, cold temperature, sweetness, and perhaps other thing such as "being fashionable"

Yes - I don't see how this goes against anything I said. As I understood it, you were arguing that we do want the pepsi in itself, not the mix of concepts you describe here. I was simplifying when I said it is the taste we desire; of course it can be any mixture of sensory data (though I think the taste is in this case quite clearly the most important one).

No one can describe the taste of pepsi, any more than he can describe "blue". The first apprehensions are undefinable.


Perhaps; but I don't see what this has to do with the previous discussion.

I have already written a lot, otherwise I would discuss what I think is the prime example of the interaction between the individual mind and reality: a rainbow.

Interesting, though I'm not sure what exactly you mean.

Finally, about the "Cogito". I think a better translation of that word in Descartes would be "Doubt": "I doubt, therefore I am". For he was founding his philosophy in the doubt of every other concept, and the root of his doubts was himself -- this is the context of the phrase.

I think Descartes's "cogito" is often misunderstood. But what matters here is not what Descartes meant by it, but what I mean by it. And the way I understand it, "cogito" refers simply to the activity of consciousness. "Thinking" is one part of this activity, and is a decent translation. "Doubting" is a type of thinking. "Perceiving" might work also. But the point is simply this: the one type of universe there cannot be is one in which there is nothing, for there is at the very least my consciousness. One could very well say "there is at the very least my thought" but "consciousness" works just as well and is more fundamental. So I don't think that there is any trickery going on here.

A mark of conception is that it is accompanied by a word. It need not be the word used by people. But you can't conceive anything without having a word for it, even if it is your own, private word.

I'm not so sure about that. What about young children that have not yet learned any lingual skills, and yet have very clear conceptions such as mother, pain, hunger, etc.? These are not merely transitory sensory perceptions, since the child is able to retain the concepts. Or what about animals that don't have any ability to form words (even internally) and yet seem to be able to understand certain concepts? For example, a dog that demonstrates loyalty to its master. Sure, that loyalty is instinctual, but it requirese that some concept of the master be formed and retained out of the transitory sensory impressions.

But perhaps you are right in that words, or something very much like them, are needed before abstraction is possible.

And this is not the first instance of "choice" as an important feature in the philosophical journey... Logical Positivism has almost to deny the existence of "choice", since it accepts only logic as a standard, and there is no choice where logic is involved.

Wait a minute - first of all, I don't think that logical positivism insists that logic is the only way of determining anything. It seems quite clear that logic is unable to tell us anything about the world. And what do you mean by "there is no choice where logic is involved"? Logic is unable to tell us anything about the world, so it would seem that if logic is the only standard, then all decisions about what the world is like are mere "choices". I'm also not happy about the word "choice" in this context. I don't "choose" to believe anything; I believe (in the non-absolute sense) whatever reason tells me to be most likely. I think it likely that logic is correct; that is why I try to use logic to help me to know things. I do not merely choose logic because I like it.

Also, the word "choice" connotes action. It is not really necessary to make a choice in internal (and non-absolute) beliefs; I can quite easily hold both positivism and realism in mind as possibilities without choosing between them. "Choice" in the sense of choosing what to do is quite another matter. I do indeed choose to act in accordance with logic and reason, in part because I think it probable that logic and reason are valid and in part because that is the way my brain is programmed to work (and thus the way I am programmed to act). But this kind of choice has little to do with philosophy.

But there is choice involved in our lives in (at least) three major spheres: aesthetical, ethical, religious. A Vulcan must also choose in these spheres. (But this is off the subject).


I will perhaps grant you ethics, of those three. See above for my view of the state of ethics/morals. I agree that a purely rational being must at the least choose what to do, and that would seem to be the definition of ethics.

Religion? I see no need for a Vulcan to choose it. The rational thing to do is not to choose some religion, but simply to assess the probabilities of any metaphysical statements as well as possible. Since religion is fundamentally an internal decision, there is no need for "choice" - a rational being will simply hold whatever relevant probabilities it perceives in mind.

Aesthetics? Surely aesthetics are neither the result of choices nor of philosophy, but merely of one's internal nature. Things that are thought to be beautiful are thought to be beautiful simply based on the particular consitituion of the human brain. I have never chosen to perceive something as beautiful; it simply happens. Moreover, conceptions of aesthetics have no bearing on philosophy; they lie purely within the realm of psychology and neurology.

This has been a rather enjoyable debate thus far. Thanks!

[Michel Delving]

I'm about four post behind on the reply front but I'll catch up...

I took the trouble of e-mailing an expert in the field regarding the phrase In the beginning was The Word. Here’s the reply:

The Word generally speaking is the name of God. Which is Yod Hau Vau Hau. In
English the name is Jehovah but in Hebrew there are no vowels.
The quote in the beginning was the word comes from the gospel of St. John.
There are 72 names for God this is called the Shem Hem Foresh. So the whole
thing becomes a study in itself. But it is said that if the name of God were
pronounced the whole world the whole of the Universe would be destroyed and
begin again. In Poland in the 16th century there was a Jewish Rabbi who made
a man out of clay, the name of God was inscribed upon the man of clay, on his
forehead, he then proceeded to bring him to life, the beast that resulted, you may be surprised to know, was called Golum.


________________________________


Aiwendil2, mentioned Bin Laden and Hitler, whose names always pop up like bad pennies in these kind of discussions. Of course, we all agree that these people personify evil because they are opposed to our moral ideas of a civilised society. However, they completely believed that they were right in what they did and did not see themselves as evil. Therefore Good and Evil are in the mind of the beholder and as a result do not exist.

As for a non-logical world were a self-contradicting statement is true, Eriol. How about the world of the Imagination? How about a world made entirely of emotion. The first is a completely illogical world where anything can become everything. How about this for a self-contradicting statement that’s true: It is the it that it is not.
The second is a place were reason loses all balance and pours forth in liquid emotion. Have you ever seen a Talk Show were everyone criticises the actions of a guest entirely based on the logical approach. It’s easy to talk and judge but very hard to apply reason to someone who has been overcome by emotions.

I doubt, therefore I am. What a fantastic concept!

And finally: 2+2 = 4. Two symbols joined by a symbol reflect (via another symbol) and further symbol; but it equally is x + x = y. Once we’ve been taught mathematics we can recognize the symbols. For example, the symbols of this year (2003) we all recognize and live by but as we know it’s not really 2003. It’s possibly 2003 years after the death of a possibly fictitious character called Jesus. More accurately the symbols for the year should be in the multi billion mark and even then they wouldn’t be accurate. So anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus doesn’t believe it’s 2003 by default, but if they didn’t their cheques would all be returned, they would always be late for appointments and be shunned by their relatives for forgetting birthdays, not to mention Christmas! So we have applied these rules in order to maintain the fabric of Civilization; so 2 + 2 = 5 would collapse this structure.

My 2+2 = 4 also comes with a whole host of connotations too – memories of an unpleasant maths teacher, eating Jelly Beans and watching Sesame Street, two fat ladies, clickety click - or is that 88!. So 2+2 as symbols may equal 4 but I see and different 2 + 2 than you. So I could if I wanted say 2 + 2 = 9. It would be wrong but I might perceive it to be right.

[Eriol]

Don't worry about "getting behind", MD... each response is so "full of meat" that even for me, who am not "behind" in the sense you used, will have to do a lot of work to keep up!

And that's how it should be... I agree with Aiwendil, this is very interesting and fun!

So, answering MD first. About the Word. I really don't see what is the connection between the opinion you quoted and the subject at hand :confused: . But my single allusion to Jesus as the Word, as the way in which God "thought" the Universe, is the interpretation of this passage by St. Thomas Aquinas, which built on the interpretation of St. Augustine regarding this subject... they're experts too :).

Perhaps you are alluding to GW's comments, in which case I am intruding in something that is not related to me :eek:.

As for non-logical worlds, the world of Imagination is a very logical one. I think the difficulty here is that you take "logic" to mean "perception", while I take "logic" to address the relationship between concepts. Sure this computer in front of me can suddenly become another thing. This does not break the rules of logic. It would break the rules of reality as we suppose them, BUT (and this is an enormous but) the rules of reality are in the realm of "reasonable gambles" (to use Aiwendil's terminology). Gravity may end or double tomorrow, and this won't break the rules of logic.

However, if this computer becomes a non-computer, it can't keep on being a computer. This would break the laws of logic. And this is unconceivable. Try to conceive it. A computer being a computer and at the same time a non-computer. This can also be applied to your emotional world. Emotions do not defy logic, they change the terms of the reasoning. Behind every bewildered act, even behind serial killers, even behind Hitler and bin Laden (your examples -- I would not go to such an extreme, there are examples closer to common life), there is always logic.

And about symbols and 2+2=4 -- I think you are beginning to explore, perhaps by yourself, what I alluded to in a previous post: linguistic analysis, following the path of Wittgenstein. I think this road is a dead end, and perhaps we could talk some more about it, but it would take even longer posts than are seen in this thread :eek: -- perhaps we could open another one just for it. I will say just one thing regarding it therefore: I think this road confuses symbols with meanings, the symbol "2" with the concept of "twoness". 2+2=9 is acceptable if we change the meanings of the symbols, but if we take the concepts themselves being symbolized by these 5 symbols, and accept them for what they mean in everyday speech, then it is NOT acceptable. You might perceive "2", "+", "=", or "9" with a different meaning than I see in these symbols -- but if you agree with me in their meaning, then "2+2=9" is simply false. For you and for me. The confusion of symbols and meanings is the ban of this road...

Now, I'll check Aiwendil's post...

What I mean by "human experience" is somewhat more than "life in society", though it includes that. "Human experience" is for me the life of the intellect. Please refer to my post about sensory input, perception and conception to see what I mean by "without logic, life and function would cease to be". It means, simply, that we would not be able to even form any concept in our minds, we would certainly not be able to become aware of our selves (since this is a VERY LATE concept in the evolution of our minds). There is a huge amount of background before "I think, therefore I am" can be formulated in a brain.

Also, the word "believe" is not simply a good gamble as I see it. I think our major difference, Aiwendil, is that for me the concept of "I" includes more than my mind. So when I say "I believe in the reality of this can of pepsi", I am really saying "My mind, my heart, my body, my soul, my ego -- they all believe in the reality of this can of pepsi". (There is probably a lot more included in "me"... but these are the easy concepts -- I'm sure this sentence will beget a lot of criticism, hehe).

About computers x humans. You say that we are such computers, computers who question their own programs. I don't quite understand that. Is there no difference in your mind between computers and humans? How do you define a computer? Please relate your definitions to actual, existing computers, and not imaginary ones ;). Or, in other words, do not assume our status of "computers" in your definition -- you have to prove we are such computers. Or to prove your rather reckless (:)) assertion that if we build a sufficiently complex computer it will be undistinguishable from a human being. Isn't that a leap of faith?

About the mix of concepts involved in "pepsi". What I am trying to say is that the concept of pepsi is something created by our minds, encompassing all the sensory and non-sensory data involved. When we want a "pepsi", we are addressing this concept, not the "ontologically real" pepsi. But (another big but) this does not mean that our concepts are completely detached from the "ontologically real" pepsi, for they are built from the sensory data that came from that "ontologically real" pepsi. Again, I refer you to my post about how we create concepts.

It's interesting that you brought up the example of young children, for it is precisely the evolution from non-consciousness to consciousness in young children that shows very clearly how the mind builds concepts. Are you interested in child psychology? This is a rather fascinating subject, I could recommend a few good books...

Finally, about choice. This is also related to my definition of "I-ness", including more than the mind. You say:

Rejection of logic is different, though; if one rejects this (including the logic of confirmation), then one will cease to function well. So in our actions, it is best to assume that logic and reason hold, and even best to assume that our process of confirmation is justified. But if we are talking philosophically, if the very question we're interested in is whether such things are rationally justified, then we must not make that assumption. One cannot that because we make the assumption, it is true.

And it seems you make a distinction between life and philosophy. This is a distinction of the mind, surely. YOU, the individual Aiwendil, have chosen reality, and logic. Your mind may explore other options, but as your ordinary life shows, the rest of your being is quite content with logic and reality. This is philosophy also, my friend! There is no clear boundary, philosophy is not something you indulge as a pastime. (Though this misconception is very widespread, and "philosophy/philosopher" has even become a common term for dilettantism in language). Philosophy is about how we are going to live... as that wise old man (Socrates) said, "the unexamined life is not worth living". So, action, will, emotion, they are all a part of your being as much as your intellect, your mind. And they have chosen.

(The mind is used to think of itself as "king of the hill"... and IMHO -- I hate this acronym, everything I have said so far is clearly only my humble opinion -- well, IMHO the first step towards a real philosophy is accepting the limits of reason. It was with that beginning that I, eventually, accepted God...).

This divisionism between life and philosophy, psychology and philosophy, aesthetics and philosophy, is really a reflection of a divide between mind and self. The mind throwing the light of reason upon everything else, except itself -- and therefore not seeing that it is grounded in other things. For me, each and every one of these subjects is very much under philosophy -- love of wisdom.

And in these subjects choice is quite common. Not choosing is also a choice, Aiwendil.

Religion? I see no need for a Vulcan to choose it. The rational thing to do is not to choose some religion, but simply to assess the probabilities of any metaphysical statements as well as possible. Since religion is fundamentally an internal decision, there is no need for "choice" - a rational being will simply hold whatever relevant probabilities it perceives in mind.

"Probabilities", in this sentence, is a major metaphysical concept. How can you assess "probabilities" with no sample, no repetition? You can't. So our hypothetical Vulcan would be simply following some prejudice (and worse, unexamined prejudice) in "assessing the probabilities of any metaphysical statements". And as for it being an internal decision, this is precisely what makes it a choice. "Choice", as I use the word, is related to the free will of the agent. It is very much external decisions that are subjected to coercion, be they coercion of other persons or "coercions of logic". But when we choose to accept logic or not, there is no coercion at all. It is an internal, free decision, and this is precisely why it is a choice. The same goes for accepting reality, or a God (for there are several to choose -- the Prime Mover, the Ultimate Goodness, and the Father are just three examples; I believe in all three, but each one of them are a result of choice. Aristotle would probably believe only in the first two...).

Once again, this is fun, I await your answer eagerly... see ya!

[Gil-Galad]

Well,I've said many times perfection is impossible.It can be only a dream.Having that in mind I would say that there aren't "absolute things".If there is absolute good it will be a kind of perfection,perfection of good.If there is absolute evil,it will be a kind of perfect evil,perfection of evil.but there is no perfection.Now matter how good something or someone is there is a grain of evil in him that is waiting to be awakened.In every evil creature there is a grain of good,because nobody was born evil and there is a small part of good that is somewhere in his heart.

[HLGStrider]

In humans I don't believe "perfect" is possible. However, in spiritual, yes.

It all depends on your concept of God, your concept of good and evil. If you believe in God as all powerful he is powerful enough to be perfect. If you don't believe in God (or a god of some sort), I have a hard time in seeing how you can believe in good or evil at all.

I think whether or not God exists is the gist of most arguements like this, which is why it is sad that we cannot prove or disprove his existence. The entry of a god, especially a powerful one (I believe in an all powerful one, but a God with any degree of power) changes the entire model of the universe. If he is, one thing is true. If he isn't another is. That's why there is sometimes almost a futility to these arguements, if there are differing views.

I personally don't believe in greater evil or lesser evil. In a human world, some kinds of behavior, such as murder, appear more evil than others, such as lying. I contest that they are all evil and it doesn't really matter which is more evil (Legally, yes, because there are certain things which hurt more people so they need to be discourage