Are We More Than Just a Machine?

RandFan said:
This is not axiomatic and I don't have a basis to accept it now.
Click to expand...
That remains to be seen.

Whatever it is, it is. Why do we need to label "it" or give it properties with out reason?
Click to expand...
Why do we have the propensity to label anything else?
 
Iacchus...I am an incredibly patient person, but this thread, finally, puts you squarely in the "Troll" category. You complain about "derailing", but from your opening post you are asking a question which has been answered for you many times before. Each time, you paint yourself into a corner, abandon the thread, wait a bit, and start another one.

Your animistic theory of life has been torn to shreds in other threads, and you have yet to crack open a biology book to better arm yourself against further attacks. Your "spirit receiver" analogy of life runs counter to observed evidence (that is, on those rare occasions when one can wrest a testable hypothesis out of it), and yet you drag it out again and again. People here--even those who respond negatively to your drivel--treat you with far more respect than you have earned, and you have the nerve to turn and attack them for legitimate questions about your views (questions for which, of course, you have no answers).

Your philosophy would be tired for a high school sophomore. Your biology would not get you into a high school class, let alone out of one. Your aversion to reading is simply ridiculous for someone who claims to care about your topics. I have to keep reminding myself of your age, because your ideas are so juvenile. You are older than I am, for Ed's sake! As so often is the case, Shakespeare said it best: "thou should'st not have been old till thou had'st been wise."
 
Iacchus said:
That remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
If you sincerely believe this then you do not know the definition of axiomatic.

ax·i·o·mat·ic
adj.
Of, relating to, or resembling an axiom; self-evident.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that in the future it might be self-evident? What could change that would make it self-evident?

Why do we have the propensity to label anything else?
Click to expand...
Labels serve purpose. Calling the moment "spirit" only serves to confuse the issue and suggest unwarranted conclusions and or assumptions. Why should we label something when it is not warranted to label it thus?

Would it be helpful to call a rose "spirit" or "car"? Why not simply call it what it is and what best communicates our meaning? "the moment". Calling it spirit seems to be just playing some semantically game. Words aren't meant to confuse they are meant to convey meaning. I'll stick with "the moment" since that is what it is.
 
Iacchus said:
"Be still, and know that I am God."
Click to expand...

I'd believe LG was god before I'd buy you as a supreme being.

Iacchus said:
Anything? Which of course is but a subset of the moment. So what you speak of is impossible outside of the moment.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about "outside" the moment. I said "Get laid. [Do] Anything." refering to being "in the moment." Apparently, you seem to think that being "in the moment" requires nothing more than acknowledging there is a moment and you are in it. Right, my children got that as infants. They were also able to do many other things "in the moment", as are almost all the other posters here. Why can't you? Seems like, as a god, you have even less utility value that the imaginary ones the other trolls have dreamed up. I'd get more use from a toaster, and I don't eat toast.
 
Mercutio said:
Iacchus...I am an incredibly patient person, but this thread, finally, puts you squarely in the "Troll" category. You complain about "derailing", but from your opening post you are asking a question which has been answered for you many times before. Each time, you paint yourself into a corner, abandon the thread, wait a bit, and start another one.
Click to expand...
Well, fortunately I don't have to answer to you with respect to my beliefs, unless of course you're considering banning me from these forums.

And, as much as I would like to carry this further, I do have to get going. Sorry.
 
RandFan said:
If you sincerely believe this then you do not know the definition of axiomatic.
Click to expand...
Oh, there are so many things I don't know isn't there? ... Isn't that just pathetic?
 
Iacchus said:
You are your spirit, so, you really have no excuses. And, if you wish to dwell on your sphincter, that's entirely up to you.
Click to expand...
What thought process leads you to the conclusion, given the premise that I have a spirit, I am the spirit?
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
What thought process leads you to the conclusion, given the premise that I have a spirit, I am the spirit?
Click to expand...
I don't have to think, in-as-much-as I exist. And thinking is just a by-product of this.
 
Iacchus said:
Well, fortunately I don't have to answer to you with respect to my beliefs, unless of course you're considering banning me from these forums.
Click to expand...
Not for the moment. I want to see if you can make it all the way to 5000 posts without saying a single thing. So far, so good...

And, as much as I would like to carry this further, I do have to get going. Sorry.
Click to expand...
...he said, then continued to post...
 
Iacchus said:
I don't have to think, in-as-much-as I exist. And thinking is just a by-product of this.
Click to expand...
No, you're right. You don't have to think, but you might like to try it out sometime. Why do you equate spirit with self?
 
Iacchus said:
I don't have to think, in-as-much-as I exist. And thinking is just a by-product of this.
Click to expand...

Reverse Cartesianism? That's a new one.

Add that to Swedenborg Mystic, Zen Master, pseudo-Lifgazerist, Campbell Scholar, Juginan Researcher, Greek Mythology Scholar, and Dream Wizard, and our man Iacchus starts looking like the L. Ron Hubbard of JREF.

:D
 
Darat said:


Are you certain of this diagnoses of Hitler (especially given that even his earliest works are, for most of us, incoherent rants e.g. Mein Kampf).
Click to expand...

No, I am not certain. I have read it in a number of places. I believe, though I could be wrong, that he contracted syphyllis as a soldier in WWI, and that this is well documented. As for the associated dementia that appeared later, that is speculation. However, he did demonstrate a lot of symptoms associated with that dementia.



I always smile at the "just a machine", I don’t care if I am a machine or not, I like living, I like my experiences and if it is the result of some chemical processes what difference does it make?

On some level, it makes no difference. We are what we are, whether we like it or not. But if we are "just" machines, it's hard to imagine why we ought to do anything other than live for the moment, doing as we please, and not caring one whit for the next generation of machines or for the feelings of our fellow machines.

Many people would say that our society in fact has a lot of people who behave in exactly that way, and that we are not better off for it.
 
BillyJoe said:

It seems that, by your own admission, the evidence points in a direction opposite to what you would "like to believe". Do you intend going with what you "like" or will you follow the evidence? Your head tells you "materialism", but your heart tells you "dualism". Which will you choose? Evidence or intuition?
Click to expand...

The evidence is inconclusive in either direction. So if I go with intuition, I am not necessarily going against the evidence. I am going with some evidence, and against others. Also, the existence of intuition is, in fact, evidence.

I don't know what I'll do in the long run. I remain open to the possibilities, and skeptical of all of them.
 
Meadmaker said:
But if we are "just" machines, it's hard to imagine why we ought to do anything other than live for the moment, doing as we please, and not caring one whit for the next generation of machines or for the feelings of our fellow machines.
Click to expand...

Because we are machines that are poorly adapted to flourishing in solitude.
 
Iacchus said:
I think what you may be referring to here is a case of "impaired reception," much in the way a damaged radio receiver will deliver an impaired output signal, yet the input signal is stronger than ever. However, if there was no signal in the first place, regardless of how fancy the radio is -- or, in a state of disrepair -- there will be nothing to reproduce.
Click to expand...

I don't think my argument is a case of "impaired reception".

I'll try to state my argument as follows.

Let us suppose that our spirit animates our bodies. Then the observable behavior of our bodies is a consequence of the will of our spirit. However, our behavior can be altered in predictable ways as a result of brain injuries, chemicals, or diseases. If our behavior is a consequence of the will of our spirit, it follows therefore that the injury to our brain did not just alter our brain, but our spirit.

No one seems to accept this idea, that a bullet can injure our soul. However, it can certainly change our behavior, including makign some people behave in a fashion that we would consider immoral. If so, can we really have such a spirit?

I think the resolution of the problem can be found by ceasing to consider ourselves as unique persons whose behavior is animated by a unique spirit. However, I have no great explanations of this concept for the moment, so until such great explanations inspire me, I will have to leave it for the moment.
 
Iacchus said:
Oh, there are so many things I don't know isn't there? ... Isn't that just pathetic?
Click to expand...
This is not my position. I didn't understand why you would have said that something could be axiomatic in the future? Having thought some more about it I think it is possible. What is "self evident" sometimes is based on understanding. In other words, what is "self evident" today wasn't necassarily self evident 200 years ago.

I will withdraw the point.
 
Meadmaker said:

On some level, it makes no difference. We are what we are, whether we like it or not. But if we are "just" machines, it's hard to imagine why we ought to do anything other than live for the moment, doing as we please, and not caring one whit for the next generation of machines or for the feelings of our fellow machines.
Click to expand...
If we are "machines" (I really dislike the metaphor, not because it is inaccurate, but because it comes with so much baggage), then we are as we have been programmed. In our case, we have been programmed through chance variations and differential reproductive success, and nothing more. As such, it is fairly clear..we care for our offspring (and other genetic relatives) because such caring has helped our genes survive. We see it as "moral", but in truth any other morality simply would not have survived these particular conditions...or rather, did not. We care about those around us because, for the vast vast majority of our species' existence, those around us have been our genetic relatives.

So...Actually, it is fairly simple to see why we do things which are more than just living for the moment. It is fairly simple to see why we care about others. What is not simple is what the (*(%&*%( Iacchus is trying to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom