*for christians only* It's time to regroup guys those atheists are killing us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RooJ

So what makes the final choice to take said substance? Freewill and choice must originate from outside of the cause and effect ran universe, true? So the real you, the soul should be able to choose not to take a specific drug regardless of the physical brains addiction.

---

It is precisely the mind that is addicted and the mind that makes the choice. The spirit is the timeless awareness behind that decision. The spirit is not making the decision, rather, it is aware that a decision is being made. Who is making the decision, then? A false self that we mistake for our true identity. The ego in the mind is making the decision, not the spirit (to follow up on these ideas, read A New Earth, Eckhart Tolle).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Really? You might recall a lot of civilized post right before you left the R/S forum for like 5 months.

You'll see some more civilized posts directed towards you, after it stops being funny to make fun of this ridiculous new view of religion you have, and reactions on that mockery what is a source of even more entertainment.

---

No, I recall you being a child and making cheap shots at any theist who posted. I joined this forum last November, and that was the first impression I had of you. The impression still holds.

As far as my views being ridiculous, you haven't taken a single thing I've said and broken it down logically to undermine my philosophy. All you've done is shout absurdities at me, called me a fag, said that my beliefs are delusional, etc. Have I done any of this to you?

But the ego is part of the cause and effect chain, as you said, its not the soul. If the ego is part of the brain, how then can the brain make free decisions? If decisions are being made independant of a soul then they arn't free because they're a result of the causality of the universe? And if decisions arnt free, even a small minority of decisions, how then can you say we have freewill?

Alternatively if you're saying the ego is somehow part of the soul / seperate from the body, then how is the ego trapped by the physical brain into taking a substance. When a final decision rests outside of the cause and effect chain then that decision shouldn't be affected by causality, so addiction shouldn't occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RooJ

But the ego is part of the cause and effect chain, as you said, its not the soul. If the ego is part of the brain, how then can the brain make free decisions? If decisions are being made independant of a soul then they arn't free because they're a result of the causality of the universe? And if decisions arnt free, even a small minority of decisions, how then can you say we have freewill?

Alternatively if you're saying the ego is somehow part of the soul / seperate from the body, then how is the ego trapped by the physical brain into taking a substance. When a final decision rests outside of the cause and effect chain then that decision shouldn't be affected by causality, so addiction shouldn't occur.

---

I'm a little thrown here. You seem to be suggesting that if the soul does not exist, we cannot have free will. But I'm under the impression you don't believe we have souls. So where does that leave you? Do you deny that we have free will?

The ego is not part of the spirit. It's entirely separate. Yes, the mind works according to laws of cause-and-effect. But your false assumption is that mental causality operates just the same as physical causality. This cannot be true, for if it were then we would not have free will (and we clearly do). Mental causation must be different such that the effect is not necessarily determined by the cause (whereas in physical causality the opposite is true). This is an interesting topic. If you're interested, check out The Mysterious Flame, by Colin McGinn.

Quote:

---

Do you deny that we have free will?

---

Now you're getting to the juicy stuff :), Its certainly a possibility i consider.

Quote:

---

Yes, the mind works according to laws of cause-and-effect. But your false assumption is that mental causality operates just the same as physical causality. This cannot be true, for if it were then we would not have free will (and we clearly do).

---

Well we can analyse what we know of how the brain works:
http://www.bris.ac.uk/synaptic/public/basics_ch1_2.html

If we scan the brain while we think and make decisions we can clearly see neurons firing in the relative areas. Your assumption is that the brain can function somehow beyond the universes causality, but clearly the brain and its many neurons function in a cause and effect manner even as we are thinking. Lets look further, what causes us to make a decision in the first place, can you truly make a decision without a cause for making it?

I dont believe we "clearly do" have freewill and i agree its an interesting topic.

Here's an excerpt from that book to help you grasp what I'm talking about.

"The causation of behavior by mental states in nothing like the kind of mechanical causation of which physics treats. When billiard balls collide, they impart energy in the form of momentum to each other, and there are laws that govern this type of interaction. But beliefs and desires don't make contact with action, and there are no comparable laws governing how behavior will evolve in the causal circumstances. We simply have no general theoretical grasp of how mental states cause behavior. We have the word "cause," but this carries no information about the nature of the causation. The fact is that mental causation does not imply necessitation, which is why you could have chosen to go biking instead of rollerblading. We do not understand how such causation works, but that is not to say that there is nothing to the idea. Free will is mental causation in action, the mysterious interface between mind and action. Once we admit that we have no good understanding of this kind of causation, recognizing that we cannot subsume it under our understanding of physical causation, then we can continue to believe in free will without being able to explain it. If we insist on trying to understand it in terms we are familiar with, namely billiard-ball causation, then we will not be able to reconstruct the notion of freedom we have. Once we let go of the craving to explain, we can accept the reality of something that we cannot theoretically comprehend. Free will is a mystery, and therein lies its possibility."

Colin McGinn, The Mysterious Flame, p.165

Hope that helps.

Very interesting excerpt,
I agree with the author that we dont fully understand causation in the brain, but we are aware that the brain seemingly works on causality due to our research on neurons and how they function. The question then is can a brain who's individual parts are seemingly built on causality function in such a way as to give freedom from causality, and if so how can it possibly escape the cause-and-effect system its built upon. The authors answer is summed up here:

Quote:

---

Once we admit that we have no good understanding of this kind of causation, recognizing that we cannot subsume it under our understanding of physical causation, then we can continue to believe in free will without being able to explain it.

---

Ive never bought the argument "forget it because we cant explain it". Its obvious the brains much more complicated than billiard balls bouncing around a table but maybe only in the way that theres many many more bounces, so much so that the eventual output is almost impossible to predict given the input.

Grow up!!!

Yeah, this whole book argues that consciousness and its attributes cannot be explained. They are a mystery forever unknown to man, hence the title, The Mysterious Flame (of consciousness).

There is actually good reason to believe this. According to the anti-reflexivity principle, an entity cannot operate on itself. That is, a finger cannot point at itself, a knife cannot cut itself, etc. This suggests that the conscious entity, the understander, cannot understand itself. Therefore, we will never understand the essence of consciousness, nor how it operates in the physical brain.

Good discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

a finger cannot point at itself

---

Mirror

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

Mirror

---

It would be pointing at a reflection of itself, not the actual finger.

No, the reflection is pointing at it. But since it is a reflection of itself, it is pointing at itself.

When you look in the mirror, you see a reflection of yourself. You do not see yourself. It looks just like you, but it is simply a reflection. It is not ultimately you. The finger does not ultimately point at itself, it points at a reflection of itself. How is this unclear?

It's unclear because it's the same light either way.

Think of it this way. If you were leaning over a pond and saw your reflection, what is it that you see in the pond? Is that you in the pond, or simply a reflection? If it was actually you, it would follow that you were in the pond. But this is obviously not true. You are on dry land, leaning over and looking into the pond. You see a reflection, and nothing more.

No, I'm not in the pond, just on its surface.

Which is also untrue!

Not according to quantum physics.

A finger pointing at a mirror is just that: a finger pointing at a mirror. The mirror contains the finger's reflection, thus it appears the finger is pointing at itself. But it is still only pointing at a mirror. If it was the actual finger in the mirror, then it follows that my whole body, the room I'm in, the apartment, the building, the town, etc. are all, literally in the mirror! This is absurd.

It's just a matter of perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

anti-reflexivity principle, an entity cannot operate on itself. That is, a finger cannot point at itself, a knife cannot cut itself, etc. This suggests that the conscious entity, the understander, cannot understand itself.

---

I dont really agree with this theory, when we learn about the brain we usually don't probe our own brain, we're most likely probing that of mice and other people, can your finger point at another persons finger?

But this is kind of leaving the point, the point is that the brain functions, at least partially, and more likely fully on causality, as observed by other humans. Making decisions seems to be no more then the work of neurons in the brain, its easy to say we dont understand as yet but what do we do with the functions we do understand to a certain degree, neurons? Should we ignore the causality of neurons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

Grow up!!!

---

Thanks for bringing your awesome insight and infinite wisdom into the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

According to the anti-reflexivity principle, an entity cannot operate on itself. That is, a finger cannot point at itself, a knife cannot cut itself, etc.

---

What sort of principle is that? It may be interesting as a thought-exercise, but certainly is trivialy broken in real life.

A finger long and flexible enough can curl and point at itself.
A knife with a very long flexible handle can cut itself.
A tape recorder can record the sounds of its own operation.
A ruler shows the measurement of its own length.
A boxer can punch himself in the face.
A census taker must count himself in his census.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

What sort of principle is that? It may be interesting as a thought-exercise, but certainly is trivialy broken in real life.

A finger long and flexible enough can curl and point at itself.
A knife with a very long flexible handle can cut itself.
A tape recorder can record the sounds of its own operation.
A ruler shows the measurement of its own length.
A boxer can punch himself in the face.
A census taker must count himself in his census.

---

Good, good. I don't agree that all of these hold (for instance, the boxer using the hand to punch his face...'punching' is the executive function of the hand, and it cannot punch itself). But the example with the ruler is certainly a counter to the above principle. There's also the fire that burns itself and the light that illuminates itself. So no, the principle does not hold, but it was worth the speculation.

You are clever folks!

Just one thing, a fire doesn't burn itself. The things that are on fire are the materials/gases in the air.

This entire Forum is undated with Closed minded. No, let's make that for friendly.
People who have made up their mind. With a big .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

This entire Forum is undated with Closed minded. No, let's make that for friendly.
People who have made up their mind. With a big .

---

What?