7thangel

Would you believe, that in essence I believe that there is no such thing as good and evil? Only vessels to glory and vessels to destruction? Because both kind of vessels are created by same Being!

So I guess don't think too fast.

7thangel

Finally, we have something to work on!!!!

Unfortunately, Bill Snedden, before we come into that point of “if there is a God” I would like prove that there is an invisible being that exist with power, distinct from the physical being - that there are spirits. I refer to it as wisdom. I believe that in wisdom is where the true intellect comes from.

One of the meaning of the word “integrity” is “the state of being unimpaired; soundness” So, in a way, I mean of the intellectual integrity as having one’s intellect to be the true intellect itself. I noticed that the intellect, as we conceptualize it, is not subject to the laws of physics. For if the laws of physics is applied in everything, then all things leads to determinism. In the view of determinism, there is no such thing as free will, which is important in making decision, the process how the intellect works (please read the thread: Could we have free will? – Philosophy board). If free will does not exist, therefore there should be no judgment; for if no one has ability, nor power, to choose, then why condemn anyone?

Another characteristic of the intellect is the ability to make plan and to reach goal, changing to a desired outcome rather than that of the determined ones. Although I guess, this still is subject as to if one has ability or power to make choices.

As to 99percent, how come in a world of uncertainty, or randomness, there is free will? The work of the intellect is to determine distinctions and coming out with a “willed and determined” desired outcome. Read “Could we have a free will” thread. I think AnthonyAdams45 really speak in volumes.

If the intellect’s choices come in random, you may kiss me today then kill me tomorrow. Wow! that is scary, didn’t you think about that? On the other hand, I have to say that in the things I cannot discern, I have no intellectual integrity of them. So expect that I have no intellectual integrity about all things. And expect me to believe that you have no intellectual integrity of anything you accept you are ignorant about.

The true intellect should not be referring to the ability of the brain cells to react on stimuli, but of the ability of the spirit, the wisdom in man, to process the brain to react on stimuli. Of the first, the reactions will be of determinism, while the other is of Free Will.

I guess it is really hard to distinguish the difference of being “carnally discerned” to “spiritually discerned” because we use the same body, our own bodies, to justify both.

So who among us really make sense, and have the intellectual integrity?

God Bless you all.

Jayjay

This is exactly why most world religions are utterly ridiculous. Why indeed does the supreme creator of the universe feel compelled to judge over some hairless apes on a tiny speck of dust floating in space?

As for why people "condemn" other people, that has a lot more to do with pragmatic deterrence of undesired behaviour. By shunning murderers and thieves, we reduce murders and theft in society. Plain and simple, no free will or any other such hypothetical force required.

7thangel

To Jayjay:

I guess you did not understand the implication of what I am talking about. You are talking about people without intellectual integrity. What makes you think you are not one of them? In some cases, however, there are many reasons why a simple thing becomes a threat to a whole generation, are you able to judge them?

From the way you give your reasoning, I cannot trust you either. Well, you misunderstood me, so you could mean my goodwill to be hostile.

Jayjay

I really cannot tell whether you would consider me to be a person who does not have "intellectual integrity" because, like I pointed out before, I don't know what you mean by the word. It seems that you wish to define "intellect" and thus "intellectual integrity" in terms of the supernatural; whereas I and many others here do not. So, I guess that by virtue of not being a big fan of supernatural explanations, I do not have this quality that you wish to incorrectly call "intellectual integrity". Should I? I don't think so.

I'd like to ask you in response, how can I trust anything you say if you wish to redefine words to mean whatever appeals to your own apologetics? It is exactly this kind of word games that turn me off from discourse with theists.

7thangel

I guess I found a better illustration Jayjay:

Imagine a computer. A computer can really make great calculations, and can even do better than average human. Example of that is the Deep Blue computer that played chess with Karpov. It can react into actions as if it thinks. Does that Deep Blue Computer has an intellect? I guess your answer may be none. I also believe that it has no intellect at all. For in reality, the computer has no capacity to judge and the free will to make a choice on its decision. Now, if man’s being, that includes thinking and reacting, is governed by the laws of physics, and that everything that happens in man is because of cause and effect, then I could conclude that there is no real intellect that rest in him. This is regardless if there is “randomness” in the behavior of particles, as 99percent is pointing out. My dilemma is that humans are far complex computer, and that like the computer Deep Blue, it could better it’s opponent. And that without knowing the principle of how he/she comes up with how he/she makes decisions, I could not have known if he/she has intellect.

Now, part of having a true intellect is the presence of “free will.” My conviction is that the source of free will should not be a part of the physical world, rather its source comes from an entity of energy, an spirit, that can control the flow of physical reaction of the body. Knowing itself what really the true intellect and its source is my objective.

I once have conversation with a pantheist who says that all things, including particles, have consciousness. I really do not know if he believes particles could have had an intellect. I go crazy with what he believes, but curious really to hear from whoever has same conviction.

God Bless,

Jayjay

Kasparov (or maybe Karpov, I don't remember which one said this) did in fact Deep Blue to show "alien intelligence". A chess player of his rank can "see" the intellect of his opponent from the way he plays, whether he's defensive or offense, and what goes on in his mind. Simpler chess computers are not intelligent in this regard, because a good enough human player can see through the style and notice that it is purely mechanical, whereas human players (even bad ones) rarely are. However, Deep Blue, despite being simply a more powerful version of the simpler machines, did manage to "fool" Kasparov into considering itself as an intelligent chess player, instead of just a predictable algorithm.

So if Deep blue is capable of exhibiting "thoughts" that are indistinguishable from intelligence, what makes you think it is in fact not intelligent (as far as the game of chess is concerned)? Sure, you can refer to the inner workings of the machine, but by that same token you could disqualify humans from being intelligent by appealing to the physical nature of our brains. If you wish to think of humans as sophisticated machines like this, surely you can... but if it's impossible to point out a difference between a complex machine and an intellect, isn't the distinction rather arbitrary?

Now, of course human brains do not work exactly like a computer... but just as well as you can count on Deep Blue to play good chess, you can count on people (most of them, anyway) to behave like humans. This unfortunately includes some uncertainty, as human behaviour is often erratic and irrational. Unlike computers, we have to force ourselves thinking logically instead of emotionally.

Referring to what I just wrote above about Kasparov, I think that you can know whether something has intellect if it behaves in ways consistent with that. Besides, you do know that humans have intellect... we know that we have brains that work in a particular manner, and that we have certain psychological patterns that govern our decision-making procedures. People do not randomly flip and go on killing sprees without a reason. However, if you were correct in assuming that there is a supernatural element in our thinking, then how could we ever be absolutely certain how it works and hence why we can trust it? After all, it would be something completely beyond our field of knowledge... for all we know, we could be possessed by devils or angels any moment now and nothing would be certain!

Well, considering that I think "free will" coming from the realm of supernatural is a silly notion and riddled with problems of its own (like, "where is this supernatural world exactly?", "how does the spirit interact with the material?", "why does brain damage affect our free will?"), I'm going to just ignore this argument. The only free will there is originates from the fact that we're too complex and messy to be predictable, hence a perception of freedom.

Anyway, it seems that you seem to think that not having a supernatural source of "free will" is somehow untrustworthy? I don't really see why... after all, if we are governed by laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc., at least we know what's going on with our thoughts, whereas if we're supernatural spirits that nobody can really know anything about then all bets are off.

What if God tells you to hijack a plane and fly it in a skyscraper tomorrow? How can I trust you not to listen to voices in your head?

7thangel

Well, one problem is that you are showing uncertainties about the things that link to the intelligence. And the best stance of which you are convinced is that we do not differ from a computer. No matter how complicated Deep Blue computer is, it is still a thing without real intellect. For it does not really show free will in its intelligence, and that its intelligence are programmed according to the inventors and programmers. Its reactions, though expressing intelligence, are actually deterministic. Humans, on the other hand, which is far more complicated, its reaction is dependent on the laws of physics, same way, deterministic.

In such case, interestingly enough to me, the bible states that such human is actually dead. Because that actually makes him move into being is fueled by the laws of physics, which is the same to all nature. And that its being, though it shows intelligence is on the dictate of the laws of physics.

Such case of showing humans as computer entails a lot of misapprehension about it. If the case be true that humans are the same as computer, then, it has no free will, intellect, and morals. This thing, given to be understood, justifies any Being with free will to act according as he/she wills

This is one of the implications that I want to be understood.

God Bless

Dr. Retard

I assume "the same as computer" means material and more-or-less deterministic. I want to know what materialism and determinism have to do with free will, the intellect, and morals. You must see secret connections between seemingly different topics.

Jayjay

To continue with the Deep Blue analogy, it does exhibit "intellect" as far as chess is concerned, even if we know that it's behaviour is fully deterministic. Why cannot humans likewise exhibit free will, intellect and morals despite the fact that our brains are also governed by natural laws? Deterministic or probabilistic nature of our brain tissue is no moral implication or justification for "any Being" (why the capitalization?) to do anything at all. I do not see how you can possible see such an implication.

If I toss a coin in the air, its movements are governed by natural laws... yet, there is great uncertainty for any observer whether it will turn out heads or tails. Uncertainty itself does not negate determinism (or more accurately, naturalism), nor does it require that the coin has some sort of mystical property of "free will" or "intellect" to decide which way it will land. Same applies to Deep Blue, and humans.