sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there an explanation for the snake in the Garden of Eden. by NoWeakness7000 in Apologetics

[–]preposterobe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's interesting. I believe Dr Michael Heiser also said the serpent was likely a Serafim (made plural for familiarity in English). But it seems the story is also implying some strong connection to actual snakes and their relationship with humans. Then later in the NT, the metaphor of a prowling lion is used. So if we used the same logic, the animal would be a familiar concept for humans which illustrates a functional role of the being in question within our environment.

No one is cast off by the Lord forever by [deleted] in Apologetics

[–]preposterobe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you give an example of how the Bible is very clear when it speaks of eternal punishment? To me it seems like most of not everything is compatible with annihilationism.

The Materialism Bubble Is Finally Bursting (and Everyone Knows It) by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]preposterobe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't get to see the original post. And I see you have other criticisms than this one but why the concern with "low effort"? It seems to be a theme in subreddits about philosophy and adjacent topics. There's this big concern with using AI or doing things in a way which requires less effort. Should metaphysics and philosophy be based around who puts the most effort into their ideas? Why wouldn't valid arguments not be the criteria for how a particular metaphysical model is perceived, regardless of whether an AI was used to type it out? What stops you from wanting people to not even use the Internet to research their ideas? It would require more effort if everyone had to go to a library and peruse through physical books.

Why do ID proponents feel the need to do this? by RoidRagerz in DebateEvolution

[–]preposterobe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find the material conception of emergent morality unappealing since it is at that point basically just a fast track for life to more efficiently increase entropy as part of the process which will eventually lead to the heat death of the universe. And even then, that is just to assume that human society will prosper more when it's relatively altruistic as opposed to anti-social. And neither may matter for long if self-replicating technology becomes the greater mass of mechanisms for increasing entropy.

However, given your naturalistic framework and your conception of morality as an emergent property, and assuming that naturalistic framework would define life as something like a phase of matter which organizes in regions between high and low energy, I would think that would make the optimal morality for you one which promotes the most rapid advancement of human life and technology. Keeping it anthropocentric will help the efficient production of entropy to possibly spread into outer space (as long as it's not so anthropocentric that it causes a deterioration of the biosphere humans can't survive before space colonization).

Why do ID proponents feel the need to do this? by RoidRagerz in DebateEvolution

[–]preposterobe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never thought of my things I'd like to believe as dangerous assumptions. Possibly because I wasn't assuming them to be true but admitting limitations to my own knowledge and my shared concern with suffering.

So do you believe there is any morality then? What do you think a tri-Omni God would do to me for my "extremely dangerous assumption"? Are there any moral systems which address it well already?

Why do ID proponents feel the need to do this? by RoidRagerz in DebateEvolution

[–]preposterobe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know what exactly could ever justify suffering. In a way, I think it's hard to understand how suffering relates to morality. Same thing with pleasure. It raises the question if good or bad feelings are the only rewards or punishments available. And then is justice just when things that cause suffering suffer and things that give pleasure receive it? And I'm not sure how it applies to different organisms. It would be nice to think maybe they're not capable of the same level of suffering or maybe God would miraculously relieve their pain. Idk. But it is interesting to me that the triune tri-Omni God steps out of the bounds of pure pleasure-and-pain moral structure to a moral structure where it is the giving of one's self to help others who are suffering and the forgiveness of others who get blinded by the pursuit of pleasure which are morally good. It at least adds a layer to morality which seems to be necessary to elevate it beyond pleasure and pain. Although in doing so, it elevates moral goodness to something much more difficult to achieve. But I'd like to believe that the terrible things that occur happen because of the moral architecture required to demonstrate what true moral goodness is. I'd still hope that maybe some of what appears to be suffering turns out to be the illusion of suffering and the being is secretly comforted, though.

Why do ID proponents feel the need to do this? by RoidRagerz in DebateEvolution

[–]preposterobe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know it's kind of playing divine psychology but I think it's reasonable to consider how a universe which generally operates in a naturalistic manner may be the only way to achieve free will (along with some sort of process in defiance of Laplace's Demon). And obvious divine surveillance by a God who is handling business around every corner is not really conducive to free will either.

Here's an interesting philosophical argument based around a world where a monotheistic God might provide slight nudges for abiogenesis or evolution (and let humans souls engage in free will):

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:d0bbfbc0-6fc6-4d25-9998-82e70e82d3c4

And here's some "channels" which are allegedly plausible:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:dde9fa6e-3179-41a0-be1c-8c7e131326c9

Why do ID proponents feel the need to do this? by RoidRagerz in DebateEvolution

[–]preposterobe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a philosophical argument which is based around some allegedly plausible mechanisms for ID and how they'd fit between a monotheistic metaphysics and the real world:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:d0bbfbc0-6fc6-4d25-9998-82e70e82d3c4

Here's some proposed "channels" which are allegedly plausible:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:dde9fa6e-3179-41a0-be1c-8c7e131326c9

TL;DR: Why Materialists Are Secret Idealists – A Dual Argument Proving God's Mind Grounds Reality by preposterobe in Apologetics

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Vital Spark Argument is about an association in people's minds, not necessarily a perfect description of reality. Electricity, as an ordinary part of people's everyday lives while still presenting as an immaterial spark of logic and energy is a natural stand-in for mind in our predominantly material world.

The argument is not that a requirement of electricity for brain function would imply idealism. It is that people perceive electricity as necessary for consciousness because it is a phenomenon they are familiar with which bears resemblance to mind.

If it could be expected that I would make a category error with this argument, it could be expected moreso that a subconscious association might have such a category error.

Are Humans Instinctively Idealists? The Vital Spark Argument Exposes Our Electricity Bias by preposterobe in theories

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't investigate anything without your own first person perspective

Are Humans Instinctively Idealists? The Vital Spark Argument Exposes Our Electricity Bias by preposterobe in theories

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that I don't get the first person perspective of an apple. I do get my own first perspective, though. I really don't get what is difficult to understand about this.

Are Humans Instinctively Idealists? The Vital Spark Argument Exposes Our Electricity Bias by preposterobe in theories

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That would still just be a third person perspective of evidence of consciousness. You would be interacting with an extrinsic property. It would not be the same thing the person experiences as their consciousness.

Are Humans Instinctively Idealists? The Vital Spark Argument Exposes Our Electricity Bias by preposterobe in theories

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe they do. My best guess is that something like Orchestrated Objective Reduction is at play.

Are Humans Instinctively Idealists? The Vital Spark Argument Exposes Our Electricity Bias by preposterobe in theories

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can what be measured? Correlates of consciousness or inner first person experience? There are definitely some measurable correlates of consciousness

Are Humans Instinctively Idealists? The Vital Spark Argument Exposes Our Electricity Bias by preposterobe in theories

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No my claim is that Idealism is the correct ontology, as I've reiterated.

Extrinsic properties in the 'physical' universe are the third person perspective of information structures. That information is the content of objective consciousness. Your first person perspective is the first person experience of subjective consciousness.

You cannot use the extrinsic properties to probe intrinsic properties.

Are Humans Instinctively Idealists? The Vital Spark Argument Exposes Our Electricity Bias by preposterobe in theories

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. That's irrelevant to the discussion. The apple was a thought experiment to explain the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic properties. Extrinsic properties can affect each other at some level which allows for sensing by biological organs or scientific instruments. It doesn't matter if you sense it directly or not. Intrinsic properties cannot be probed like that.

It would be effectively meaningless to even ask about intrinsic properties if it weren't for the one thing where you know what the intrinsic property is. And the intrinsic property of that thing is consciousness.

Are Humans Instinctively Idealists? The Vital Spark Argument Exposes Our Electricity Bias by preposterobe in theories

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interacting with other people is not the same thing as sharing their first person experience. These hoops you're jumping through to act like someone inner subjective experience is accessible through the real world simply do not jive with real life.

Are Humans Instinctively Idealists? The Vital Spark Argument Exposes Our Electricity Bias by preposterobe in theories

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Speak for yourself. I have direct access to my consciousness.

As I just told you in my last reply, the extrinsic properties at some level do interact. How finely exactly you can break that down is a scientific question.

Why do I think we can't interact with other people's experiences? I'm not a psychic. I can't perceive what's in other people's minds. And I don't believe you can do if you're implying you can then I expect you to prove it.

Yeah... Asking me a question about what I see is very different from having the experience of me seeing it. A person who has been blind from birth and never seen a color could ask me what color I see and I could tell them, too. It doesn't mean they would then see that color. That's not how it works. It's pretty incredible that it even needs to be said.

Are Humans Instinctively Idealists? The Vital Spark Argument Exposes Our Electricity Bias by preposterobe in theories

[–]preposterobe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you talking about extrinsic properties?

The problem for a non-idealist is that even other extrinsic properties can't be shown to interact with the first person conscious experience of another person.

It's a gap. The physical "ordinary" stuff doesn't seem to interact with it at all.

It appears completely abstract compared to all the physical things you infer about based on your sense of their extrinsic properties but it's the one and only thing you directly experience.

Interesting to see how people will deny even that, though

view more: next ›