Thanks for the reply romansh,
Quote:
|
It certainly felt like I had free will, it certainly was buried while I was in an emotional state. The philosophers and neuroscientists seem split on the free will aspect.
|
I don't think the last part is true. Think about it. What is your reason for your action to stop at 2 beers? What is your motivation to be calm and cool with your kid? What are your reasons for actions? Could you change your reasons for those actions? If so, what reason would you have to do that?
If you sit and look at it like that (this is how the philosopher Schopenhauer describes it) then you see that the notion of free will falls into an infinite regression that doesn't make any sense. When you say you have a reason for an action you are describing how you, the machine, is working. The notion that we are somehow free to make a choice (in some cosmic/ultimate sense) is an illusion. It appears that way because of our egos (this is not necessarily a bad thing!).
Quote:
Quote: |
All that being said, the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God... The god of the west... Is defined as an individual entity that we are necessarily separate from. Furthermore, this entity inserts us into the world, and then takes us out and judges us based on our behavior during our lives.
| I think many theists might argue this interpretation. Thinking back to my early indoctrination.... God is in us all type arguments.
|
The fall is an image that the literalists talk about separating us from god. He is the father and the CREATOR. We are the CREATION. We are certainly separate entities in the stories of the west. Whether it's sin that separates us or whatever.
Quote:
|
Chem engineers use boundary conditions to help simplify a model, because the contents of the model are often complex and adding the complexity of the universe would get them (and me) to the sixth beer. Different types of engineers may use boundaries in other senses?
|
Cool, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Boundary conditions are there because you define a boundary. This is green's theorem. Draw a border around it, define the boundary conditions and the functions that govern the behavior of the system and you get a solution. But the choice of that boundary is arbitrary (there are reasons). Think about the boundary that is my skin. If you could characterize the boundary conditions (i.e. sensory inputs and behavioral outputs) back to my conception then you would have a full description of who I am.
But expand that boundary to include you and me... What's the difference? That's what I'm talking about. You would just need a new and more complex set of boundary conditions. But it'd still be a system. The boundary you choose to solve a problem in engineering and physics is arbitrary. Some boundaries make the problem easier to solve.
This speaks to the fundamental fact that there is no thing that produces effect without cause. There is a system and it's I/O. Shrink your boundary to nothing or grow your boundary to infinity.. That part is arbitrary.
I'm not promoting atheism. I just think that there are some religions that put forward damaging ideas that are demonstrably false. Given that there is no ultimate distinction between you and me, the notion that a deity judges us as moral agents is false.