(March 8, 2014 at 4:08 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Well I agree with what you said except I do believe we have value already but we increase or decrease based on how we act and except with our lives having actually value if God or spiritual realm exists or not. It's true Atheists can be better humans than people who are religious or spiritual but it doesn't prove your last two lines.

How does there being a god or a spiritual realm make life have meaning it wouldn't have if there weren't? Do you believe that you will exist as a spirit forever? Is that what gives things meaning, permanence? I don't see how what you're proposing offers an answer as to where meaning comes from. So value is "in your spirit" instead of in your brain; how does that make it any more "real" ?

(March 8, 2014 at 9:49 pm)rasetsu Wrote: So value is "in your spirit" instead of in your brain; how does that make it any more "real" ?

Well if it's just a concept created in the brain, it has no essence, it's purely conceptual. This value seems to be such that it exists as we imagine it to exist. While in the case of a spirit existing, it's estimating something that is real, and not simply conceptual existence. It's real because there is a reality to it instead of it simply being a concept.

(March 8, 2014 at 10:05 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's real because there is a reality to it instead of it simply being a concept.

What is "it" and how does it being in our spirit translate into it being in our lives?

(March 8, 2014 at 10:23 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(March 8, 2014 at 10:05 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's real because there is a reality to it instead of it simply being a concept.

What is "it" and how does it being in our spirit translate into it being in our lives?

Value of ourselves. Well, it's in our lives for sure. And as it's objectively true as well and we all agree on that, what we are discussing is whether it's possible to not simply be imaginative without a reality to it or in fact, there is a real metaphysical reality to it.

(March 2, 2014 at 12:46 pm)StatCrux Wrote: who admits that ultimately atheism when taken to its logical conclusion leads to lack in intentionality, lack of meaning or purpose in life and nihilism.

Lets explore the converse of this argument.

According to you, having belief in god gives meaning and purpose to one's life that is entirely different from the normal meaning and purpose we common humans give ourselves.

Taken to its logical conclusion that would mean christians have an individual purpose and meaning to their god. However, this fails in practice as god doesn't even talk to you or acknowledge your existence, but instead hides from you just as he does everyone else, leaving you in a state of cognitive dissonance requiring you imagine god communications as "feelings" that utterly lack any real information that you didn't create in your own mind.

Even the story of heaven as a reward completely lacks any element of individuality. Your endless future would be but of an endless sycophant of praise for a egotistical god and nothing else ... ever. Some Meaning! Some Purpose!

(March 8, 2014 at 10:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 8, 2014 at 10:23 pm)rasetsu Wrote: What is "it" and how does it being in our spirit translate into it being in our lives?

Value of ourselves. Well, it's in our lives for sure. And as it's objectively true as well and we all agree on that, what we are discussing is whether it's possible to not simply be imaginative without a reality to it or in fact, there is a real metaphysical reality to it.

I don't know what you mean by objectively true here. An objective truth is something that is independently true outside of being true subjectively. Now whether you speak of mind existing in the brain or our selves existing as spirit, in either case, that's not objectively true because it depends on the subjective experience of the mind or spirit. If it were objectively true, you could take it out and look at it, show it, and I get the impression that's not what you mean.

I want to make a distinction here, because many people, when it is suggested to them that say consciousness is an illusion believe that you are implying that it isn't real. Something that is not real is a fiction, not an illusion. An illusion is something that appears as one thing, but is actually something else. It's still very real, only the thing that it appears to be is not real; the thing it actually is would in fact be real. Dualists and other non-physicalists often trade on this ambiguity to imply that saying that consciousness or meaning is an illusion is saying that there isn't a real phenomenon there; that would be a fiction, not an illusion. There's still a phenomenon there, just not the phenomenon it appears to be on the surface.

To me, suggesting that value exists in my spirit, a) is invoking a dualist explanation of mind, b) suggests meaning is a thing or a property of a thing, which I deny, and c) is a non-explanation: it's just a shell game to shuttle the problem - meaning - from something you don't know how to explain it with - material - to an imaginary entity that just "magically" has the needed properties. That's not an explanation. That's no better than "Goddidit!" - it can be used to explain anything because it actually explains nothing. In speaking of desirable explanations, there are assorted properties that an explanation can have which determine whether it is a good explanation or a poor explanation. One of these is scope, how large a class of things the explanation covers. "It's magic!" and "Goddidit!" both have infinite scope; they can explain anything. Another property is explanatory power; how much better we understand the how of the phenomenon as a result of the explanation. These two have almost zero explanatory power; you don't understand things any better after the explanation than you did before it. A third characteristic of explanations is how much predictive power they have; if you can predict a lot of future results based on the how of an explanation, it's a good explanation. Again, these two fail miserably, as they yield basically no predictions.

Explanations such as yours, that meaning exists "in the spirit" are akin to the explanations "It's magic!" and "Goddidit!" They can explain anything because they are extremely poor quality explanations. They don't increase our understanding, and they don't yield predictions. It's just a way to pretend to have explained the phenomena without doing any actual explaining. It's hand-waving. It's meaningless. And as a form of dualism, it introduces more problems than it solves.

"It's a property of the spirit" is an explanation, but as an explanation, it's about as worthless as they come.

(March 2, 2014 at 12:46 pm)StatCrux Wrote: Alex Rosenberg, (in his book "An atheists guide to reality") at last an honest atheist who admits that ultimately atheism when taken to its logical conclusion leads to lack in intentionality, lack of meaning or purpose in life and nihilism. If only a few more atheists admitted this to the general public we would be a lot better off. The true colours of atheism are coming out.

I know you christians are big on believing anything that's written down in a book, but you should know something: Just because somebody writes something down and someone else decides they can make some money by publishing it, doesn't mean that said writing is actually good or even remotely accurate.

You may want to consider this fact for all your reading habits.

(March 8, 2014 at 11:23 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(March 8, 2014 at 10:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Value of ourselves. Well, it's in our lives for sure. And as it's objectively true as well and we all agree on that, what we are discussing is whether it's possible to not simply be imaginative without a reality to it or in fact, there is a real metaphysical reality to it.

I don't know what you mean by objectively true here. An objective truth is something that is independently true outside of being true subjectively. Now whether you speak of mind existing in the brain or our selves existing as spirit, in either case, that's not objectively true because it depends on the subjective experience of the mind or spirit. If it were objectively true, you could take it out and look at it, show it, and I get the impression that's not what you mean.

I want to make a distinction here, because many people, when it is suggested to them that say consciousness is an illusion believe that you are implying that it isn't real. Something that is not real is a fiction, not an illusion. An illusion is something that appears as one thing, but is actually something else. It's still very real, only the thing that it appears to be is not real; the thing it actually is would in fact be real. Dualists and other non-physicalists often trade on this ambiguity to imply that saying that consciousness or meaning is an illusion is saying that there isn't a real phenomenon there; that would be a fiction, not an illusion. There's still a phenomenon there, just not the phenomenon it appears to be on the surface.

To me, suggesting that value exists in my spirit, a) is invoking a dualist explanation of mind, b) suggests meaning is a thing or a property of a thing, which I deny, and c) is a non-explanation: it's just a shell game to shuttle the problem - meaning - from something you don't know how to explain it with - material - to an imaginary entity that just "magically" has the needed properties. That's not an explanation. That's no better than "Goddidit!" - it can be used to explain anything because it actually explains nothing. In speaking of desirable explanations, there are assorted properties that an explanation can have which determine whether it is a good explanation or a poor explanation. One of these is scope, how large a class of things the explanation covers. "It's magic!" and "Goddidit!" both have infinite scope; they can explain anything. Another property is explanatory power; how much better we understand the how of the phenomenon as a result of the explanation. These two have almost zero explanatory power; you don't understand things any better after the explanation than you did before it. A third characteristic of explanations is how much predictive power they have; if you can predict a lot of future results based on the how of an explanation, it's a good explanation. Again, these two fail miserably, as they yield basically no predictions.

Explanations such as yours, that meaning exists "in the spirit" are akin to the explanations "It's magic!" and "Goddidit!" They can explain anything because they are extremely poor quality explanations. They don't increase our understanding, and they don't yield predictions. It's just a way to pretend to have explained the phenomena without doing any actual explaining. It's hand-waving. It's meaningless. And as a form of dualism, it introduces more problems than it solves.

"It's a property of the spirit" is an explanation, but as an explanation, it's about as worthless as they come.

Very occasionally on this forum I wish we had a Super Kudos button or maybe a mega kudos button. Oh wait - a Nailed it button!

(March 8, 2014 at 11:23 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I don't know what you mean by objectively true here. An objective truth is something that is independently true outside of being true subjectively. Now whether you speak of mind existing in the brain or our selves existing as spirit, in either case, that's not objectively true because it depends on the subjective experience of the mind or spirit. If it were objectively true, you could take it out and look at it, show it, and I get the impression that's not what you mean.

Everything depends on the experience of the mind. Everything experienced is relayed to the brain. I don't know why then value of the self cannot be objectively true simply because it's in our minds.

Quote:To me, suggesting that value exists in my spirit, a) is invoking a dualist explanation of mind, b) suggests meaning is a thing or a property of a thing, which I deny, and c) is a non-explanation: it's just a shell game to shuttle the problem - meaning - from something you don't know how to explain it with - material - to an imaginary entity that just "magically" has the needed properties. That's not an explanation.

We are talking about value of the self. I do think value is a property of the self. You don't?

Quote:That's no better than "Goddidit!" - it can be used to explain anything because it actually explains nothing. In speaking of desirable explanations, there are assorted properties that an explanation can have which determine whether it is a good explanation or a poor explanation. One of these is scope, how large a class of things the explanation covers. "It's magic!" and "Goddidit!" both have infinite scope; they can explain anything. Another property is explanatory power; how much better we understand the how of the phenomenon as a result of the explanation. These two have almost zero explanatory power; you don't understand things any better after the explanation than you did before it. A third characteristic of explanations is how much predictive power they have; if you can predict a lot of future results based on the how of an explanation, it's a good explanation. Again, these two fail miserably, as they yield basically no predictions.


Explanations such as yours, that meaning exists "in the spirit" are akin to the explanations "It's magic!" and "Goddidit!" They can explain anything because they are extremely poor quality explanations. They don't increase our understanding, and they don't yield predictions. It's just a way to pretend to have explained the phenomena without doing any actual explaining. It's hand-waving. It's meaningless. And as a form of dualism, it introduces more problems than it solves.

"It's a property of the spirit" is an explanation, but as an explanation, it's about as worthless as they come.

Sometimes instead of looking of how much an explanation gives pragmatic scientific prediction, we should just look at what explanation is true given what we know and there can also be other benefits to knowing the truth of that explanation.

Also in case of this topic, I was discussing what value of the self would be in absence of a spiritual realm to me (fabrication of the mind).

(March 9, 2014 at 11:33 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 8, 2014 at 11:23 pm)rasetsu Wrote: "It's a property of the spirit" is an explanation, but as an explanation, it's about as worthless as they come.

Sometimes instead of looking of how much an explanation gives pragmatic scientific prediction, we should just look at what explanation is true given what we know and there can also be other benefits to knowing the truth of that explanation.

If someone were to ask why the oceans have tides, you might say, because of gravity. That's a true explanation, but it's also a poor one. It's difficult to tell whether a poor explanation is true or not. Like your explanation. How would you know that meaning isn't a property of the soul? Your explanation doesn't give anything to go on, you either accept it as a bare assertion or reject it. Now if someone were to say, "It's because the gravity of the moon pulls the loose skin of water on the surface of the earth as it rotates around the planet," that would be a good explanation, and would be amenable to determining whether or not it's true.

Yours isn't. Plus, your solution isn't parsimonious. In addition to the brain, you add an unseen spirit and some way for them to interact, none of which you have any evidence for. You're just making up stuff that sounds like an answer, but really isn't. You could equally well say there's a quantity in the brain that's not detectable called thruxnarb, and thruxnarb is capable of having value. It's just an ad hoc explanation that explains nothing.

I reject your explanation because it is too poor an explanation to count as meaningfully true. Do you have either evidence or a real explanation as to how meaning and the spirit works? If not, you have nothing but sophistry and word games.