@kellyjay saidI do not think pure materialism has all the answers. I do not deny that immaterial things exist. Of course we have thoughts and intentions and words with meanings, just as we have symphonies and operas. I do not deny this. What I deny is that 'Goddidit' is the correct explanation for any of these immaterial phenomena. The correct 'explanation' for words with meanings and thoughts and intentions and melodies is that these are all human-social constructs.
Yes, as we apply our minds to take more in, our thoughts are more than just the physical material in the universe. Maybe you think our thoughts are like dominoes that we have no free will it is all just programming we dance to our DNA.
We don’t just look at ink and paper breaking those down to the molecular level for insight and understanding there is more to us. We can ...[text shortened]... ules alter themselves by only material means? Why do you think materialism is where the answers are?
"... does the world molecules alter themselves by only material means." If I understand your question aright, then answer is 'yes'. Only material causes are active at the molecular level. There is no evidence of the Hand of God moving molecules about.
This does not mean, however, that materialism exhausts all that there is in the universe. Of course there are also words with meanings, and thoughts and intentions, and symphonies and melodies. The essential insight is to not confuse reasons and causes, which you confuse all the time in these discussions, both here and at the science forum. I'll give you an example of distinguishing reasons from causes, and what relevance it has, if any, to the 'which came first question'.
Take two music CDs, one with Led Zep IV on it and another with Mozart's 40th symphony on it. Take them apart chemically, down to the last molecule, and analyze the components. They will be identical: some plastic, some ink, that is all they are, chemically, molecularly. The difference between a Led Zep CD and a Mozart CD lies not in the material components, but in the information content. So, how is the information stored on a CD? By burning holes in one of the plastic layers below the surface. Now tell me, what is the chemical composition of a hole? There is no there there. Get it? No there there. Nothing, Nix, Nada, materially speaking. But there is nonetheless a difference which we can hear, provided we have the appropriate decoding device (namely a CD player) which renders the 'holes' into musical notes at frequencies we can hear. That's the difference between reasons and causes: the music functions as 'reasons' and the material storage medium functions as 'causes'; but both of them function only within a human-social context, which is wholly man-made.
If you want to understand something of the compositional qualities of Led Zep or Mozart, you don't take apart a CD (looking for material causes). You go to a conservatory and you learn tonal composition theory (which is the realm of thoughts, words with meanings, intentions, reasons).
There is no point in this 'dance' between reasons and causes where the Hand of God is moving molecules around or plucking strings on violins, and there is no point in asking which came first, the CD or the performance which was recorded onto to the CD -- even if one of them did come first, that would explain nothing.
@moonbus saidI am right now only making the point that an immaterial cause would come before any materialistic possibility. You seem to be very hung up on humanity looking at the universe we are in, in iterms we can relate to. Not sure what you would think if what was displayed in the explanation was described in terms so a chipmunk would relate to. This is a built excuse for you to avoid any possible connection to reality anyone could make, while making a point.
I do not think pure materialism has all the answers. I do not deny that immaterial things exist. Of course we have thoughts and intentions and words with meanings, just as we have symphonies and operas. I do not deny this. What I deny is that 'Goddidit' is the correct explanation for any of these immaterial phenomena. The correct 'explanation' for words with meanings and thou ...[text shortened]... as recorded onto to the CD -- even if one of them did come first, that would explain nothing.
An aside I saw Led Zeppelin live in the 70’s while going to Radioman A school in the Navy.
@kellyjay saidThere is no such thing as an immaterial cause. That means an imaginary cause, one that you imagine to exist but doesn’t really.
I am right now only making the point that an immaterial cause would come before any materialistic possibility. You seem to be very hung up on humanity looking at the universe we are in, in iterms we can relate to. Not sure what you would think if what was displayed in the explanation was described in terms so a chipmunk would relate to. This is a built excuse for you to avo ...[text shortened]... point.
An aside I saw Led Zeppelin live in the 70’s while going to Radioman A school in the Navy.
1 edit
@moonbus saidYou don't think these things through, if you are married and the wife says to you "Take out the trash" you just played a part in an immaterial cause. You amazingly can think you know what happened billions of years ago, or what will happen billions of years from now and you fail to see what is right in front of you. That must be like swallowing a camel without issue but a gnat gets stuck in your throat.
There is no such thing as an immaterial cause. That means an imaginary cause, one that you imagine to exist but doesn’t really.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidYou amazingly can think you know what happened billions of years ago, or what will happen billions of years from now and you fail to see what is right in front of you.
You don't think these things through, if you are married and the wife says to you "Take out the trash" you just played a part in an immaterial cause. You amazingly can think you know what happened billions of years ago, or what will happen billions of years from now and you fail to see what is right in front of you. That must be like swallowing a camel without issue but a gnat gets stuck in your throat.
What is it you claim is "right in front of" moonbus that he "fails to see"?
@moonbus saidAny time a coder writes code directing the flow of information or current it is a human using thought and reasoning to direct the processes, go A if this is true, go B if that is true. This is not something that simply arose out of purely undirected material processes, it takes a mind. When we see the product of a mind's activity it is quite different than an undirected mindless one, it is amazing you reject that out of hand when you simply don't want it to be true.
There is no such thing as an immaterial cause. That means an imaginary cause, one that you imagine to exist but doesn’t really.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@moonbus saiddivegeester seems to be dazed and confused about friendship; he just does not get it. And to make him understand friendship, he needs a whole lot of love; one day he'll get every inch of it.
Well, that means Kelly and I have three things in common: chess, Led Zeppelin, and our humanity. “Good times, bad times, you know I’ve had my share…”
😀
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
A tooth for a tooth, as both science and religion are fairies. Science is a wisdom tooth, and religion is a canine tooth. One is meant to crunch, and the other is meant to hold and tear, respectively. Both tooth fairies need a mouth to hold them in place, to do their thing. And that mouth is philosophy, true philosophy, to be clear.
It's all clear! You meant to be here, from the beginning.
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
I see, Parmenides, said Socrates, that Zeno would like to be not only one with you in friendship but your second self in his writings too; he puts what you say in another way, and would fain make believe that he is telling us something which is new. For you, in your poems, say The All is one, and of this you adduce excellent proofs; and he on the other hand says There is no many; and on behalf of this he offers overwhelming evidence. You affirm unity, he denies plurality. And so you deceive the world into believing that you are saying different things when really you are saying much the same. This is a strain of art beyond the reach of most of us.
@pettytalk saidIn times of tribulation
A tooth for a tooth, as both science and religion are fairies. Science is a wisdom tooth, and religion is a canine tooth. One is meant to crunch, and the other is meant to hold and tear, respectively. Both tooth fairies need a mouth to hold them in place, to do their thing. And that mouth is philosophy, true philosophy, to be clear.
It's all clear! You meant to be here, ...[text shortened]... gs when really you are saying much the same. This is a strain of art beyond the reach of most of us.
when the world seems lost and fickle,
I make myself a sandwich,
find comfort in some pickle.
Anon
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@fmf saidSpeaking as the martyr, I would say that the failure to see is due to the immateriality of the laws of physics. And the failure of sight is very likely due to the absence of a logical, visual alibi. The laws, to govern, have to be in place before matter can be let out of the singularity, and also while it's stil within the singularity. In other words, the laws of physics were created before matter was created, if we look at it from a sequential mode. In other words, the soul was created before the body. Where the soul equals the laws, and the body equals the physical universe, which needs the soul to move it in an orderly fashion, in accordance with pre-established laws.
You amazingly can think you know what happened billions of years ago, or what will happen billions of years from now and you fail to see what is right in front of you.
What is it you claim is "right in front of" moonbus that he "fails to see"?