Religous debates and questions [2]

Human language doesnt help.
Going on language, in english at any rate, we speak of dark as if its an opposite real thing to light.
So you can say "Its dark outside," or "darkness has fallen" just as easy as "Its light outside" or "the light as brightened."
Yet only light actually exists- there is no dark, or speed of dark.

I think language can be misleading, especially English. you could say its dark outside because, night has fallen,its a moonless & star less night with no means of illumination, OR you can say its dark, meaning something weird, sinister or even, evil ? that there is ulterior motive

Yeah words have to work hard in English and often have to do several jobs, sometimes all at once!

And there is the perceptual experience of dark and light versus the physical model of what often first causes this.. 

Interesting work by Lucretius (must read it sometime). The symmetry argument assumes that time exists before one's conscious awakening - this needn't be the case; and so it is not clear that the argument generalises. Furthermore, the animal develops a sense of self (which may or may not exist) that transcends its carnal nature. Superstition is therefore second nature to the creature (irrespective of whatever survival advantages it brings). It is a logical extension of the belief in self we all take for granted. 

With the universe being one giant manufacturing line for intelligent and presumably sentient life (its most elementary constitutes are necessary for the functioning of a cell), we have no reason to doubt our significance here; just little reason to doubt our mortality. Yet if the universe were not, and "intelligent design" appeared necessary, would this give us more reason to doubt our mortality? This intelligence would not be inherent in the universe and it might well be alien or artificial, its origin being a freak accident. Or what if the universe were not, and there was no physical correlate for mind at all (it was an entirely spiritual substance), would this perhaps give us more reason to doubt our mortality? There would be no limiting of mind to complex organisms and we would have to consider the immortality of a rock.. Or what if the universe were not, and there was no death? A population of 10 having more than 2 children (2.4 averaged) in a few short millennia (5000 years) would become a plethora of 3.7x10^21 (3745094340983700000000) unique albeit very old and sterile individuals.

richardbrucebaxter wrote:And for your deconstruction of state marriage; note there are psychological (and often physiological) changes that accompany child birth, and they along with raw genetic resource allocation interact with mate selection - I doubt any society would have marriage without these.

Who and what is this in response to? It's been a week and a half since the marriage discussion so without quote tags I'm not sure who the "your" in your post is referring to.

Well I don't remember the conversation, but I think Halfwise and Orwell are the primary marriage deconstructionists here.

While we're on the subject, would anybody care to challenge the statement that marriage is simply formalized monogamy?

While monogamy occurs in other animals, it's the exception in nature rather than the rule. There's some very interesting research being done on voles now, one variety of which is monogamous and the other not. It's pretty horrific in its way, and yet fascinating. They're able to study what appears to be grief by killing a vole's partner and watching the physiologic responses......  

There are tons of cultures throughout history that have practiced polygamous marriage. Do you mean strictly marriage as it is presently practiced by the majority of people?

Good point, Eldo. Polygamous marriage should definitely count, in all its many forms. I suppose I meant monogamous as opposed to promiscuous, but that's my cultural bias showing.

So what would be the antonym of promiscuous? Faithful? That's not quite right. Whatever the word, isn't marriage simply a formalization of that? [Strange that I can't think of a word. There must be one.....   ]

I can't say that I have put much thought or research into the historical origins of marriage, but it does make sense that it's a codification of (more or less) exclusive partnerships. That has a social benefit when it comes to child-rearing, and also makes it easier to hash out disputes about unfaithfulness, property, etc. The property bit sticks out to me since in many times and places women were given so few rights and marriage was like the transitioning of primacy over a woman from her birth family to her husband and his family. But that feels like an overly cynical interpretation of marriage's origins even to me, so I dunno.

halfwise wrote:David:  Yes.

Halfwise: Is that: Yes,

A. You'd care to challenge the statement that marriage is simply formalized monogamy.
B. My cultural bias is showing.
C. Faithful is not an antonym of Promiscuous.
D. Marriage is simply a formalization of that.
E. All of the above.

 

Hey halfwise - the brain contains a model of self in the form of a self-aware agent (subject) - whether this model so happens to correspond to a real self-aware agent (or is merely a neuronal representation) is not the realm of empirical science. That being said, we usually bring our philosophical assumptions to our science. This is generally some form of physicalism - ie all mental phenomena has a physical correlate. Physicalism helps with methodological naturalism, and has the most support (our brain contains memories of being self-aware, eg "I remember seeing that", and without physicalism one must provide a mechanism for how those memories are imprinted).

Yet without contemporary knowledge of the strong dependency between observed mental function and brain health it would be quite natural to extend assignment of such extraphysical being to both inanimate and non-physical objects, like plants and gods; anthropology supports this. (Note I am not calling it supernatural being here as mind is often considered part of nature, and the unqualified word spiritual has dualist connotations). This process of extension has become less popular throughout history however as even ancient surgeons could identify a significant dependency here (from the consequences of war wounds). The philosophy of absolute being relies on a slightly different approach as it deals with the source of reality not merely the assimilation of knowledge (and the physical mind let alone its apparent integration with the observer is generally considered to be the most complex system in the known universe).

halfwise wrote:No.

Why not?

whether this model so happens to correspond to a real self-aware agent (or is merely a neuronal representation) is not the realm of empirical science.- Richard

Surely the break down of self awareness, and indeed of the very concept of self in dementia suffers, correlating with recordable damage within the brain does indeed point to a correspondence between self and physicality?

That is correct; it is where semantics is quite important. The brain contains a representation of self (all evidence supports this, though we have a long way to go to understand how it is encoded). The subjective reality of self cannot however be tested (being unobservable). It is a philosophical assumption that everyone makes (and is seemingly nonsensical to reject, with respect to at least ourselves). The belief itself (including the unwavering conviction in that belief) is encoded.

This is approaching the problem from a physicalist perspective. Of course when taking an idealist perspective we would question the existence of everything but our experience (our first assumption being the existence of that experience as opposed to the existence of all things observed using the empirical method).

I would say self is merely what it feels like to be a human brain operating.
In that sense I dont think its in sciences remit to explain what it feels like to be a human brain.
Any more than science can explain what its like to be an atom.
Science can describe an atom, it can model atom behaviour, it can predict atom behaviour- but its not within science to explain what it feels like to be one.

Question. if someone was cloned exactly, I mean 100% cloned, would the two people feel like seperate people or would they both feel like one person with two bodies.

And why are twins so close even tho they have separate bodies & separate brains to think with ?

Are you both called Halfwise, Halfy?  I mean -- how do we know which one you are?   

richardbrucebaxter wrote:Hey halfwise - the brain contains a model of self in the form of a self-aware agent (subject) - whether this model so happens to correspond to a real self-aware agent (or is merely a neuronal representation) is not the realm of empirical science. That being said, we usually bring our philosophical assumptions to our science. This is generally some form of physicalism - ie all mental phenomena has a physical correlate. Physicalism helps with methodological naturalism, and has the most support (our brain contains memories of being self-aware, eg "I remember seeing that", and without physicalism one must provide a mechanism for how those memories are imprinted).

Yet without contemporary knowledge of the strong dependency between observed mental function and brain health it would be quite natural to extend assignment of such extraphysical being to both inanimate and non-physical objects, like plants and gods; anthropology supports this. (Note I am not calling it supernatural being here as mind is often considered part of nature, and the unqualified word spiritual has dualist connotations). This process of extension has become less popular throughout history however as even ancient surgeons could identify a significant dependency here (from the consequences of war wounds). The philosophy of absolute being relies on a slightly different approach as it deals with the source of reality not merely the assimilation of knowledge (and the physical mind let alone its apparent integration with the observer is generally considered to be the most complex system in the known universe).

A choice piece of word fancy, methinks.   

So, two little Halfys, both the same
Thought it be funny to play a game ,
hanging off the curtains
hiding under stairs,
not going to Fluffamentary school
they didnt really care.



Granddaddy was called in
to put them narrow & straight
But two little halfys, cute, they aint
"to much alike & to much hair!"
accused Grandpa Petty


"they need a job,that pays 10 bob
(& not as a bloody yeti)!"
Halfys did alright they say
theres work in every town
But, production of "Hair", on stage, was nearly shut down,
"We wanna be cool & we wanna be rocking !
Not stuck on a geezers head, underneath a stocking !"
Toured they did with a rock band, balanced precariously for all to see,


Toured the country up & down but wanted to be free,
They live a happy life now, among the fields so green
& if you find one moving, You'll wonder what you've seen
Elusive is a Halfy, his brother is as well
Just look at these together
And think "what the fooking hell"