FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-29-2003, 07:54 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Do you associate any meaning with the idea of mind-body dualism alleged of human beings? Or is that idea not only false but meaningless?
Inasmuch as the "mind" part of the duality is usually taken to mean, "a thing without physical existence that directly influences physical things," I would say "meaningless."
Philosoft is offline  
Old 06-29-2003, 07:57 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: PA USA
Posts: 5,039
Default

Quote:
Peter Kirby:
I would like to hear from those atheists who think that "God" is necessarily as devoid of meaning as "garblesnoof," given the definition offered above.
Today's word "god" had its beginning describing behavior, not any imagined "being." When a theist today "imagines" along the lines of your definition, said theist is still doing the same thing, and the word "god" is still best understood as describing a particular human behavior, and nothing else.

joe
joedad is offline  
Old 06-29-2003, 08:43 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft
Inasmuch as the "mind" part of the duality is usually taken to mean, "a thing without physical existence that directly influences physical things," I would say "meaningless."
Are you saying that it is contradictory or that you don't understand it?

best,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 06-29-2003, 08:57 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Are you saying that it is contradictory or that you don't understand it?
I'm saying it doesn't mean anything to me. I have no idea what type of thing a "disembodied mind" is supposed to be and, conseqentially, no way to know how to think about those alleged things.
Philosoft is offline  
Old 06-30-2003, 06:44 PM   #25
stretch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft
I'm saying it doesn't mean anything to me. I have no idea what type of thing a "disembodied mind" is supposed to be and, conseqentially, no way to know how to think about those alleged things.
A disembodied mind sounds like taking a human mind and removing something from it. Removing a brain and seeing what's left of the mind.

Darn hard to imagine.

It's not like 'imagine a circle'. I would bet that nobody has ever seen a circle. We've seen things that look pretty close, but I doubt that anybody's ever drawn a perfect one.

Can you imagine n-dimensional space, for n=7, for exampe? Does it have no meaning because you can't imagine it?

-denise
 
Old 06-30-2003, 07:55 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by stretch

Can you imagine n-dimensional space, for n=7, for exampe? Does it have no meaning because you can't imagine it?
I can crudely imagine a 7-dimensional space, like a Calabi-Yau space, or Brian Greene's "curled-up" dimensions. There are also mathematical models that represent n>3 dimensional spaces.
Philosoft is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 04:28 AM   #27
stretch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft
I can crudely imagine a 7-dimensional space, like a Calabi-Yau space, or Brian Greene's "curled-up" dimensions. There are also mathematical models that represent n>3 dimensional spaces.
What does 'crudely imagine' mean? A mental 'visual' image of some sort? Some sort of semi-intuitive grasping of a concept?

Why does being able to write something symbolically via mathematics make it more 'imaginable'? Is 'imaginability' a function of the number of ways that something can be represented?
 
Old 07-01-2003, 10:39 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by stretch
What does 'crudely imagine' mean? A mental 'visual' image of some sort? Some sort of semi-intuitive grasping of a concept?

Sure, but it's probably not even relevant. I can't even really imagine good-old 3-dimensional space. I don't consider it a "thing," so I don't think it matters.
Quote:
Why does being able to write something symbolically via mathematics make it more 'imaginable'? Is 'imaginability' a function of the number of ways that something can be represented?
Well, inasmuch as space-time isn't a thing, a mathematical representation allows us to at least put a finger on its viability.
Philosoft is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 11:12 AM   #29
stretch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft

Sure, but it's probably not even relevant. I can't even really imagine good-old 3-dimensional space. I don't consider it a "thing," so I don't think it matters.

Well, inasmuch as space-time isn't a thing, a mathematical representation allows us to at least put a finger on its viability.
It's viability as a concept or some sort of non-material 'reality'?
 
Old 07-01-2003, 12:23 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by stretch
It's viability as a concept or some sort of non-material 'reality'?
As a concept.
Philosoft is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:21 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.