quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Actually we know of no agent of any type that provides an explanation for animation

Isn't it done by folks at Disney?

quote:

It looks to me more like a matter of degrees and capacities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Actually we know of no agent of any type that provides an explanation for animation

Isn't it done by folks at Disney?

Well, *I* laughed, DC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Do all things physical contain spirit or are all an aspect of spirit?
If not, how do you distinguish which does and does not?

You asked, are we to assume that rocks have consciousness? I think that sets up consciousness as a straw man. I do not think that rocks are conscious. But who is to say that matter at all levels does not possess a degree of interior subjective experience, however dim. And what line can be drawn that isn't purely arbitrary? Some material organizations are animate and some are not, but that distinction speaks only to a capacity for responsiveness. It does not address the presence or absence of interior subjective experience. We are made from the same earthly materials as rocks. To say that awareness "emerges" in certain conditions is simply to state that it becomes evident, without explaining how something that wasn't there before can become "evident" in the first place. I can't claim to hold any firm beliefs on the question, but I don't find it unreasonable to view the situation as a matter of degrees and capacities.

K.

quote:

The state of being sentient is characterized by sensation and consciousness, also defined as life that is aware of its own existence and substances can not...'experience

quote:

We know of no spiritual agent that provides an explanation for animation other than an imaginary one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

We know of no spiritual agent that provides an explanation for animation other than an imaginary one.

True but now provide any other explanation.

Do you believe in magic Vince? Do you have any doubt in your position?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
what conclusion might a reasonable person suspect upon witnessing these assemblages of insentient materials building great cities and penning sonnets and symphonies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
what conclusion might a reasonable person suspect upon witnessing these assemblages of insentient materials building great cities and penning sonnets and symphonies?

in terms set forth, self delusion.

You are back to the pretext that religion requires a man in the sky, when it does not, but it certainly makes arguing your point much easier when you stack the deck.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

and little invested in

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Look, the reason to keep religion 'out of it' is because no debate is served and nothing is gained by...putting 'religion into it.'

Civil discourse including on religion serves the participants in sharing and exposure to beliefs and information. The goal does not have to be win/lose. A good discourse can be a mutual exploration without persuasion as a necessary goal.

But that's just it. Discourse all too often no longer remains 'civil' once someone invokes religion. Invoking religion seeks to unintentionally or not, render the debate...mystical.

Invoking religion only serves the particular participant that does it. Any objective debate needs none and is no longer objective being exposed to such mystical beliefs and for information to contribute...must be fact based.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

When somebody has a huge chunk of their personality invested in, and substantiated by, their religion, then they perceive any criticism of that as an unacceptable personal attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Animism, which predates organized religion, is the belief that there is no separation between the physical and the spiritual, between matter and spirit. But it is important to realize that such a statement would be incomprehensible to an animist.

We are frequently told that man invented gods to explain the processes of nature. But consider, for example, that you have a dog you've named Buster. You will say things like, "Buster didn't like that," or "Buster is full of energy today." When you speak in this way, you aren't talking about the "god" of the dog. Buster is the dog. That's his name. Similarly, giving a name to the sky is not inventing a "god" of the sky. Animism is not a form of theism.

The arc of history has been one of increasing abstraction and with it a growing split between the physical and the spiritual, between matter and spirit, culminating in the present Monotheistic view that the world exists in relation to God purely as an object; separate, created, material. Beliefs may vary in the degree to which they postulate spirit's presence in and ability to act upon the material world, but the fundamental split between matter and spirit remains absolute and inviolate.

Critics of Monotheism commonly attack its spiritual claims, but nobody attacks its conjoined material claim, that matter is nothing but insentient "stuff." Yet the fact remains that Monotheism stands or falls on that claim too, and it seems just as much a long shot.

We cannot explain how or why an assemblage of insentient material could or would have any subjective internal experience at all, let alone a rich emotional life and a sense of self. The idea that consciousness is an emergent quality of sufficiently complex systems begs the question. We have no idea how insentient chemicals could possibly develop a conscious awareness of their existence in the first place.

So starting fresh, without rancor or Bible quotes, what conclusion might a reasonable person suspect upon witnessing these assemblages of insentient materials building great cities and penning sonnets and symphonies? What are your private thoughts?

Ode to Joy

K.

Hi K . . .

I have issues with some of your basic assumptions.

In Christian belief the spirit became incarnate in Jesus and the human corpus is inhabited by soul. Taking communion for some Christians is the act of swallowing the body, blood, and spirit of the Christ through transubstantiation. Body and spirit are one.

I don't know of anyone who claims that insentient chemicals developed a consciousness and awareness. Please elaborate that assumption so we have a clearer notion of what you mean, or at least be more specific.

The idea that consciousness is an emergent quality from assemblages of complex systems does not at all beg the question. It answers the question. If we remove the battery from an automobile it will fail to start no matter how many times you press the starter or turn the key. The potential energy emerges as kinetic energy through the processes of complex systems. If we remove the brain from a living dog there is no evidence that it will continue to have consciousness, unless of course you believe that the dog matter contains conscious spirit. That brings us back to a more contemporary and sophisticated form of animism.

Those are my thoughts. I believe your assumptions are flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
what conclusion might a reasonable person suspect upon witnessing these assemblages of insentient materials building great cities and penning sonnets and symphonies?

in terms set forth, self delusion.

You are back to the pretext that religion requires a man in the sky, when it does not, but it certainly makes arguing your point much easier when you stack the deck.

So what does religion involve if not an unprovable belief in higher powers, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

You are back to the pretext that religion requires a man in the sky, when it does not, but it certainly makes arguing your point much easier when you stack the deck.

I am neither proposing nor arguing any such thing. Let's leave religion out of it.

K.