RE: A few questions
October 21, 2014 at 6:42 pm
(This post was last modified: October 21, 2014 at 7:04 pm by bennyboy.)
(October 21, 2014 at 3:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:I bet you can't find a quote of ME saying what you just quoted. If you're going to quote me saying stupid shit, please check first that it's stupid shit that I actually said.(October 19, 2014 at 4:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: That was also was what Albert Einstein said about his beliefs. That the working universe of the universe was set up so complex that it made sense to think it was all created by an intelligence
I bet you can't find a quote of him saying that.
(October 21, 2014 at 3:35 pm)Chas Wrote:1) Did I say there was? I'm saying that if one wants to make positive assertion, one needs to demonstrate that the assertion represents fact. Someone (TreeSapNess I believe) made a positive assertion about the nature of mind which I do not consider proven or provable-- I want him to accept the BOP, and demonstrate that his assertion rerpresents fact. The truth is, I think he's probably correct-- but I don't think anyone, even sense-speaking science-minded atheists, should feel they are right in making positive assertions without support, but constantly demanding that others meet the BOP.(October 21, 2014 at 11:48 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think the universe seems to be largely nonsensical. I mean, it seems either to have always existed, or to have magically been created by something which always existed, or to be part of a chain of infinite co-existence; fuck-- none of those options makes any sense. But I do know that it includes consiousness, and so without knowing absolutely why any chain of events occurs, one of the possibilities (even if slim) is that consciousness is injected somewhere along that chain.
Injected by whom? From where?
There is no reason to believe this - no evidence that consciousness did not emerge naturally.
2) Conscious minds are one of the things that affect causality in the universe. Therefore, given an unknown cause, it may be that one or more conscious minds have contributed to it. This is not an assertion, but a logical process-- when you are considering a context about which you have no good information, you have no choice but to extend what you know about your own context into that new context. In THIS context, mind sometimes affects causality.
Quote:100% of "stuff" we know about is known only through a thinking mind-- true or false?Quote:It depends how you look at it. On the one hand, it seems of all the things we know about, only a very small % of "stuff" involves anything we'd call thinking. On the other hand, 100% of that "stuff" is known to us only through a thinking mind-- absolutely nothing is known to exist that we are not conscious of. And 100% is a statistic worth carefully considering when drawing philosophical inferences.
That does not follow. 100% of everything we know is because we can know - we are conscious. Other animals also know things - consciousness is not binary, there or not there. There are degrees of consciousness. Consider other animals that exhibit intelligence and self-awareness like dolphins, elephants, dogs, ...
(October 21, 2014 at 2:00 pm)TreeSapNest Wrote: Is 100% of thought the product of brain and brain the product of law worthy then? :-)Absolutely, if you can demonstrate that this is the case.
