|
Post by turoldus on Nov 27, 2010 11:30:42 GMT
Debatable.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 28, 2010 3:00:04 GMT
Would those of you having theistic inclinations be so kind as to tell me how you deal with the following issues? I can certainly give my views, but I'm sure you'll be disappointed because they are not very sophisticated. I can't say I've worried overmuch about this. On the old "if it quacks then it's probably a duck" principle, it seems like we are cohesive, discrete and recognisable individuals, it's pretty much impossible to live without thinking that way, so why not accept that we are even if we cannot fully explain it? CS Lewis talked about how a neurologist or philosopher examining my brain might conclude some things about me, but I know what I'm like in a way they never can, for all of their expertise, because I know what it's like to be me, from the inside. Who's to say which perspective is correct? Further, the problem really only exists if one takes a reductionist view and says that the physical is all there is (the assumption that the neuroscientist almost certainly makes, even if only as methodological naturalism). For a dualist, the real self is not found in the brain - as CS Lewis said again (in a different context) - what the neuroscientist examines is not what I am, only what I'm made of. I think this is a very interesting question, easily solved by a creationist, but difficult for a christian who accepts evolutionary science. I think it depends again on whether we accept a naturalistic assumption about human life being "merely" a higher form of animal life. But if one is a dualist (as I think I am), then there had to come some point in evolution when the dualistic nature was created by God, even thought the outward physical form looks exactly the same. I don't think that's an entirely satisfactory answer, but I don't think any other answer or viewpoint is any more satisfactory, so I can live with it. I'm sorry, but I can't understand the point you are making here. It is probably well-known to philosophers, but I'm an ordinary Joe.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 28, 2010 12:14:46 GMT
If our behaviour is fragile enough to be influenced by such a wide variety of things (I once heard a story of a guy who suffered a head injury and became a genuinely awful person afterwards), it is hard to imagine that these can be distinguished from the normal experiences we have throughout our lives. I can't understand it, I wrote a response and I thought I had posted it but it isn't there. I'll try to remember my pearls! I too have read accounts such as you describe, but I don't think they lead to the problem you have raised. I believe we are composite physical-spiritual beings, and the physical strongly affects the spiritual without fully determining it. And one day physical death will destroy the spiritual, and our only hope is God resurrecting us. But the physical isn't the only thing. If we are composite physical-spiritual beings (i.e. dualism is true) and the self is more than the brain, then the loss of memory in the brain doesn't necessarily change the self. And the self can be resurrected into a new body. I don't see the same problem you do. I think your language (zombie) is a little emotive, but I can't see why God couldn't do that. Not saying that he did, it's just speculation, but it seems possible to me. I can agree whole-heartedly with that! I think you have made some assumptions here. Sugar may have health benefits, but so do cabbages! Romantic love may encourage us to procreate, but some people have love but choose not to procreate, and some people procreate without having any love. It seems to me that you are doing something similar to biologists do when they study human and animal behaviour. Because they believe evolution is a given (I'm not arguing with them) and because they believe natural selection is the main, perhaps even the sole, mechanism of evolution (this is a little more arguable), they assume that everything must have a natural selection explanation. So they work such an explanation out, and sometimes it can be tested, and other times it can't, but they accept it anyway because, after all, natural selection is the only game in town, isn't it? Or so it seems to this ignorant layperson. But I don't have to make the initial assumption. Are you getting to classic determinism here? In a physical universe with nothing "outside" it, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that everything, including human behaviour and choice, is governed by physics, which is quite determined, only too complex to be understood and predicted by us. But if there is a spiritual dimension to it all, then there may be (and I believe there is) room for choice, and a break in the tight connections. Or have I misunderstood you again?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 29, 2010 10:45:09 GMT
Lots of interesting ideas there, but I don't feel that any of it is disturbing, just unanswerable (which may be disturbing to some, but not to me). It seems rather difficult to imagine how we could be judged on our actions, since a good knock on the head can turn a good man into an awful one. It quickly gets arbitrary. It would appear that all the "right" and "wrong" things we do are really quite fluid and causal, even though we all (including myself) wish to maintain a perception that moral values and choices exist. In our legal systems, we are judged by our actions, but mitigating circumstances (like knocks on the head) can be recognised and accounted for. And God's judgment is (on my understanding of christianity) based on the "heart". So there are moral values, obligations and choices, but we are not generally judged as inflexibly as you seem to suggest. I don't see anything there that is cause for concern (except whether I can survive God's judgment!). Surely either they are people or they are not (in God's eyes), and surely he can find space for them all? Try telling that to McDonalds and Coca Cola, who spend money on good nutritionists to make their products more desirable (not necessarily nutritious), and I don't see them adding more cabbage! I think the facts are often opposite to what you are saying here. I'm sorry, I just don't see your point here. In our physical universe, "food ... implies digestion, which implies energy, which implies entropy", but physicists can imagine other physical worlds with different properties, so surely it's not too much to imagine that heaven could be even more different. Christians believe in bodily resurrection, so maybe blueberry pie is on the menu in the next world!
|
|
|
Post by noons on Nov 29, 2010 15:28:18 GMT
But I think it's worth asking, if one believes that people exist after death: what's going to happen to the billions of prehistoric people?
I think the most honest answer to that question is that we don't know. And then we have to ask if a definitive answer to the question is required to maintain a coherent theistic view. Also, I doubt that billions of humans lived between our clearly animal ancestors and the dawn of civilization. It is likely that there are more humans alive today than everyone who ever lived before the 20th century. Even if I am wrong about that, it is more likely that most humans who ever lived lived after the beginning of agriculture.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Nov 30, 2010 2:48:06 GMT
It is generally difficult for me to imagine a sharp line--I find it rather difficult to imagine a philosophical zombie giving birth to a child who possesses a soul. I also notice that gorillas have brains, and seem to be able to engage in sign language conversations. This suggests to me that whatever is going on is not as simple as one might prefer. Gorillas have been trained by humans to employ hand signs in order to obtain rewards. There is no evidence in this speculative reason, and it is speculative reason that distinguishes the rational soul from the sensitive soul. Reason is the power to reflect upon perceptions of concrete particulars and abstract conceptions of immaterial universals. Thus, if you say "ball" to your dog, he will associate the sound with a particular concrete object - to wit, his play-toy ball - and will rush to the last place he remembers having seen it. Perception - which includes memory and imagination - can accomplish wonderful things, which is why you can train a gorilla to make signs, but not a petunia. However, if you say "ball" to a rational being, that person will after a pause say, "What about it?" The dog recognizes a sign; the person recognizes a symbol. The dog [or the gorilla] sees a big blue bouncy ball and sees that big blue bouncy ball. A human looks at it and sees "ball" or "pi" or "color" or "sphere". No other animal has created art, mathematics, speculative systems of physics and philosophy, etc. The mother may have not had reason, but certainly had imagination and emotion. The gulf is not as wide as your "zombie" metaphor implies. Sugar tastes good because it is high in calories, which are beneficial to staying alive. Romantic love exists so that we create more of ourselves. And so on. This is behind Fodor's critique of natural selection. It is way too teleological for his atheist's take. Since there is no intellect in nature, the intellect that sets the ends must be outside of nature, etc. This propensity to spin unproven just-so stories was criticized also by Gould. Romantic love [Friedehe] was an invention of the High Middle Ages. Previously, parents had shopped their kids in order to make family alliances and preserve property [Muntehe].
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Dec 1, 2010 6:40:12 GMT
But would you say this distinction between us and modern day gorillas,or any animal,is one of 'kind',or one of 'degree'?Your 'blurry line',implies the latter,and has to have some implications for theists,imo.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Dec 1, 2010 20:29:47 GMT
It is possible that our legal systems are simply an inevitable result of the way things are, and exist solely because they deter and prevent crimes (and hence, societies lacking such things would perish rather quickly).
Then why legal systems with utterly different bases. The Ming Chinese legal system was not to deter or prevent but merely to punish disturbances to filial piety. It was penal in nature. You followed the rules or you got caned. (Even the victim of a robbery might get caned, since he, too, contributed to the disturbance.) Only the Christian-derived legal codes incorporated the notion of synderesis; that is, of conscience and guilt.
There is no evidence of societies lacking in legal codes. The natural selection model does not apply. There was no competition for resources between societies with and without legal codes; hence, no differential survival.
All societies [and species] that exist have, by definition, survived. Hence, all are "fit."
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Dec 4, 2010 20:33:30 GMT
rwzero - I note your phrase "definite" individuals. What defines us as definite individuals? This is a question that philosohers have struggled with for a long time. One of my favourite illustrations is that of an ancient wooden man o war. Over the years, the ship requires many repairs, and many new parts. At one time or another many of it's plans, and ropes and sails are replaced. Eventually it's cannons are taken out, and below decks receive a complete new makeover. It eventually ends up in a dry dock as a historical artifact. Itis cleary a very differnt ship from what it was originally, bu twhen a guide tells you that this ship faught alongside Nelson's ship at Trafalgar, you don't dispute it. You know the history of the ship, and you know it is clearly the same ship even though it has had many modifcations, some of them quite drastic. We too, go through many modifcations in life, some of them quite drastic as you have pointed out. Maybe we may lose our memories, maybe our personalities change - I know mine has - I am not the same person I am now at 53 that I was at 33, or even 43 for that matter. Some of that is probably not of my willing, I no longer suffer some of the same temptations I used to because my body has changed, although I may have whole new ones now! Some changes are entirely volitional, such as my resolution to cut down drinking alcohol. If I were to suffer from Alzheimers in the years to come, then clearly my range of free choices is drastically reduced, and mere appetite may take over. However, however, I am still the person that a particular history attaches to. From God's point of view, it was still me that did whatever good or evil actions I did, that had good or evil inclinations, just like our fictional ship is still the one that blew a few French ships out of the water.
Another illustration for you - imagine some 90 year old ex Nazi camp guard being discovered living in a modest little flat in Berlin. He has been a devoted father, spent most of his free time and a lot of his money helping the homeless. And then it is discovered that this gentle old man was a brutal camp guard responsible for the death of hundreds of innocent people. Clearly no longer the same man. Should he be punished? The crimes were commited by him, and they are no less horrendous because 50 or more years have elapsed, and he is clearly a very different person now. But he is still the same individual that commited those atrocities. Persons change, but individuals remain the same. Moral values remain the same. As to what happens to personality when we die, well, personality is ephmeral. You have made that point very clear. But personhood is something different. We become the person we are as a result of all sorts of things, our genetic inheritance, our choices and reactions, some of which are chosen and some not. I believe that God judges the whole person, what we have become as a result of a lifetime of decision. If that lifetime ends in mental ill health and forgetfulness, God knows us better than we know ourselves. I think it is God's perspective that matters here, and not any problems we may have reconciling freedom and determinism. You are clearly a mentally healthy and intelligent person know that you have a signifcant degree of freedom, you know that you are responsible for your actions. I am not a good enough philosopher to prove this to you rationally, but if you really doubt that you have free will, maybe you should also be doubting your ability to think coherently. If you are so wrong about something you know at such a basic level, what else might you be wrong about? Should you be trusting your reason at all. That's my take on it anway. Hope some of it is useful.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Dec 5, 2010 12:52:01 GMT
I wonder how important memory is in constituting personhood? Neuroscientists think that memory is less like a passive databank that we can retrieve from at will, and more like something that we reconstruct. How would this affect your notion that our personhood is lessened by lack of memory - if that is indeed what you are suggesting? I appear to have a very poor recollection, my wife appears to remember everything - is she more of a person at this present time than I am? Also, one cannot hold all of one's memories consciously before one at any one time, so if you could, would this make you more of a person, than someone who could not do this. To revert to your example of a person with Alzheimers, is it the lack of memory that makes us think that they are not the person they were, or is it the fact that they cannot be held responsible for their actions? We do tie in the notion of personhood to responsiblity do we not? There are mysteries here, and I do not think that science can resolve them. I think philosophy can explore them a little more deeply, but even then questions remain. Your original question was addressed to believers, and to be honest, I don't think that as a believer I can resolve your questions satisfactorily. I can tell you however, that belief in God does suggest a way of looking at these issues that science or philosophy alone does not. You put my point about being known better than one knows oneself much more succinctly than I did, and I think there is a clue here worth following up.
|
|