Information on: Christianism or Atheism

by N.N., K. Renard, V. Setzer, J. Waterworth

(https://www8.informatik.umu.se/~kivanov/RenardNN.html)

(https://archive.org/details/renard-nn)

 

 

(2022-12-23; version 240120-1025)

 

 

CONTENTS (in English language):

 

 

Link to a General Disclaimer

Foreword (by Kristo Ivanov) (in English)

 

PART ONE

Krister Renard’s way to Christianism (in Swedish)

NN’s way to Atheism (in Swedish)

                      Min utveckling

                      Mina synpunkter på Renards utvecklingsberättelse

                      Sammanfattning

                      Bilaga

Krister Renard’s response to NN’s comments (in Swedish)

 

 

PART TWO

Engineering, Phenomenology, Anthroposophy or Atheism (in English)

(E-mail conversation between Valdemar Setzer and John Waterworth)

A third party’s biased resume of the conversation

A rejoinder to the third party (TP) – dated 240117

 

 

 

FOREWORD (By Kristo Ivanov – in English)

 

 

This document contains in its PART ONE two papers written in Swedish by two authors, both of them academically educated and trained in technology and natural science. The Swedish text can be fairly translated by the reader in e.g. the Google-translator, in pieces of maximum 5000 characters (with spaces). If possible I myself or the authors may later check the accuracy of such a translation and publish it here. The subject matter of Christianism and atheism is also considered in my later related paper on Logic and rape, vs. truth and love.

 

One of the authors, Krister Renard (KR), had started by telling the story of his way from technology and science to Christian faith, publishing on his own site, this being the reason of why it is not being reproduced here. The other author who did not yet wish to publish his text, and therefore remains anonymous (NN = No knowledge of Name), upon my suggestion described his own way to the conviction of atheism as related to KR’s text. It is published here as the first of two papers. KR was unwilling to enter a debate about his original paper with NN because of considering that as meaningless, since he saw no contact points between NN’s and his reasoning. Upon my insistence and mediation, however, he sent to me his comments on NN’s review, and they constitute the second of the two texts published here with his own permission. My own position on the issue is since long presented in my paper on Information and theology.

 

I invited the two authors to analyze and problematize the information about facts and reasons or arguments that led them to their respective conviction, in order to highlight the depth of the problem of information system, where the often abused terms of both information and system are problematic. The joint publication here of these two papers NN’s and KR’s takes place on the basis of my initiative and insistence to offer this difference of conviction and arguments to a wider audience instead of the authors pursuing only a private debate. In my academic experience such private debates tend to be unending, reducing themselves to a sort of logical soccer-playing, or what I call logic acrobatics. Scaring and discouraging examples are found in social media and many discussion sites such as Debunking Christianity. The debates go on until one of the authors gets frustrated and exhausted, and lets the other have the last word, which may falsely interpreted by readers as his having “won” the debate. In the present case, NN would have liked to have a last word, which he may do by publishing it in another context.

 

In this sense this publication is also a challenge to the problems that I myself have experienced and exposed in a paper with the title of Information and Debate, where I conclude in a pessimistic if not realistic vein that in ethically or philosophically complex issues it may be rather hopeless, or even destructive, to have a long discussion or debate. Because of this very same reason I myself did not enter a debate with the author, Valdemar Setzer, of a review of R. Dawkins The God Delusion, written on the basis of an anthroposophy-worldview inspired by the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner. I understand it as a supposed middle way or mix between Christianism and atheism, classified as SBNR (spiritual but not religious)”. Privately I criticized it for paradoxically being also a support of the reviewed author through the citation index, while it can be compared with another criticism of Dawkins (in Swedish), in a blog by very same first author here, Krister Renard. More about all this and Steiner can be found in my theological paper when “dealing modestly with the unknown” and presenting “concluding reflections”.

 

In order to avoid “debate” in our context here, I found that the first writer on the issue (KR) merits priority in the sense that the burden should fall upon whoever questions something that has already been published by somebody who could be already dead, as often is the case of published books and texts. Because of this, the first author (KR) was given here the only one undesired burden to make one further effort beyond his first authorship: to comment the second author’s (NN’s) text, while we expect that the latter will write and publish an own self-contained article on the issue that in the future we may link to from here. Therefore “the buck stops here”. That is, except for NN having remarked on 6 September 2022, that I had forwarded to Renard an earlier version of his paper, which he had updated to a version 3 that I received in December 2021 (about the same time I forwarded his paper to Renard), followed by a version 5 that I received first on September 2022, and could already have taken in consideration Renard’s published comments. Since these two later versions have not been and may not be read and commented by Renard, I make them available here on this very same site for the readers who are interested in NN’s thought. I consider this as an interesting example of the problem of publishing and be personally responsible for what is asserted, as compared to reworking the text in a lengthy dialog or limited private debate between only 2 or few people. This is what I wrote above and repeat here about: “my initiative and insistence to offer this difference of conviction and arguments to a wider audience instead of the authors pursuing only a private debate”.

 

=======================================

 

Regarding the PART TWO of the paper: later, in the year 2022, the same colleague NN (re-coded below as XXXX) sent me a hint about a video with the title “Atheists cannot explain this secret code seen in creation” by the Christian apologist, astrophysicist Jason Lisle (presented here and here). He also explained to me that he was not interested in the introduction of the video but rather in what it had to say about the Mandelbrot set. He also told me that he knew about and “agreed 80%” with theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder in her video in which she explains “why free will is incompatible with the currently known laws of nature and why the idea makes no sense anyway. However, you don't need free will to act responsibly and to live a happy life, and I will tell you why”. She explains further her views in another video on “existential physics” where “she draws on the latest research in quantum mechanics, black holes, string theory and particle physics to explore what modern physics can tell us about the big questions. Watch the Q&A here.

 

 

I forwarded NN’s hint to another colleague of mine, computer scientist Valdemar Setzer (coded below as YYYY), who wrote a comment that I forwarded in anonymized form to a third colleague, John Waterworth ZZZZ), psychologist focusing on computer applications, especially virtual reality. This initiated the e-mail correspondence below between the two who agreed to copy me and to my publishing the text of their mails. It is done here below in a slightly edited form in order to clarify the first up to fourth order of quotes in the text (>,>>, >>>, >>>>), quotes that were not the same in the used cell-phones and in the mail-software of the involved computers. The time-headers of the mails do not always take into consideration that Setzer mails from Brazil and Waterworth from Sweden (summer-time difference of 5 hours). The text includes some repetitions that are to be seen as a natural part of the style of argumentation, not requiring elaborate editing such as “extracting the essential”, the less so in view of my general disclaimer. Occasional additions enclosed in square brackets [ ] are mine.

 

The correspondence terminates as between Krister Renard and NN in the first part of this, paper, with one of two parties appreciating the debate but finding that there is no longer a common ground for continuing. This prompts me to ask myself and all interested how they do suggest to define further the meaning and search for such a common ground. It is a tragic question since it stands also at the base of divorces and wars as lately exemplified in my paper on the Ukraine-conflict. I propose that one step in this task is each part to try to posit the own philosophical basic view for later exploration of theology. My contribution now is to suggest that ZZZZ, as earlier NN=XXXX, departs from logical positivism as embodied in engineering science, applied and contextualized  with phenomenology in two books on Primitive Interaction Design and The Psychosocial Reality of Digital Travel. YYYY, departs also from engineering science, and is strongly influenced by anthroposophy as represented by Rudolf Steiner in his Philosophy of Freedom (translated as Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path), applied in a paper on Science, Religion and Spirituality. As a general orientation about spirituality I propose Wikipedia’s introduction on spirituality and mood.

 

And what about the Christian apologist in the video that triggered it all by discussing the relation between science and the Bible? It is a touching example of goodwill but a sad misunderstanding of the essence of aesthetics and its relation to reason and religion, that today characterizes even the drive for “design” and computerization of society. The assumed goodwill is possibly darkened by an implicit ego-boasting assumption that mathematics is so to say the language of God and that consequently mathematicians, logicians and computer scientists are His priests. The question is whether anybody dares to think of and ask for the relation between the aesthetical fascination of the Mandelbrot-sets presented in the video about relations between science and the Bible, and the aesthetical fascination of the notorious products of the pornographic industry, which is a major subset of the blandly analyzed sex industry. This seems to lead further or back to the question of reason and gender (see below), where Mandelbrot sets relate to the essence of mathematics vs. reason as discussed in the essence and foundations of mathematics.

 

A perhaps meaningful curiosity is that, as remarked by one reader, the integration of spirit and matter is also the subject of a book by Matthew Fox and co-author Rupert Sheldrake, The Physics of Angels: Exploring the Realm Where Science and Spirit Meet. I heard of Sheldrake long ago and noted the drawing of apparent relations of his ideas to Carl Jung (and Hans Driesch), in matters that in turn partially relate to my discussions in the essay on Quantum Physics, Computer and Psychology. In lack of finding something deeper in literature a speculative intuition of mine, and based on conclusions in the presentation of my paper Reason and Gender, I suggest an apparently farfetched but classic coupling of the relation of matter-spirit to theology in terms of the relation between the masculine and feminine. And as a speculative curiosity for those who can abide it, I may go further here and now, relating it to an interpretation of the classic citation of humans been born Inter faeces et urinam nascimur  (cf. here and here): spirited life’s production of dead matter (faeces et urinam) and matter’s (semen and ovum) production of living spirit. An outright theological extension of the latter can lead to the doctrine of Incarnation as in Christianism (and Hinduism) while modern secular unconscious trivialization reduces it to the popular concept of avatar, (here and here), vastly used and misused in computer contexts. All this while scientists in today’s secular western culture tend to also ignore the meaning of Eucharist because of missing consciousness of the relation between science and theology as mediated by the philosophy of science, which barely dares to acknowledge the challenge of quantum physics where Matter with capital “M” with its “particles” tends to disappear as Spirit with capital “S” has disappeared in the context of “spirituality”.

 

 

I am afraid of being enticed to see many debates “von oben”, but must confess that my personal bias is that I perceive that even serious, scholarly, well-intentioned and respectful debates become unconsciously reduced to a sort of logical soccer involving problematic concepts, a couple of them being the term concept itself, and spirit. For me concepts such as “mass” or “acceleration” in physics become concepts when construed or contextualized in a successful theory. In such a sense, so called concepts can never become concepts in a theory that is not physics but tends to become a “conceptual model” that covers “everything in a universe” where success loses its meaning. And “spirit”, as when remarked that is downplayed in Catholicism because of its supposed dichotomy between only body and soul, disregards the why it is not downplayed in Orthodox Christianity, and the supposed consequences. But it also disregards that in the whole Christian and therefore also Catholic doctrine of Trinity, the holy Spirit but not any “spirit” is one of the three persons that define God himself. In the context of anthroposophy it is interesting that it often mentions “spirituality” but much less the embarrassing term Spirit, whose function eventually gets tragically confounded with Conscience and Truth. And this is portrayed in Wikipedia’s mention of the term, while the unmentioned analytic psychology’s Carl Jung has about a hundred mentions of it in its Collected Works’ General Index (CW 20) including a famous essay on “A psychological Approach to the Dogma o the Trinity” (CW11, § 169-295) completed by “Transformation Symbolism in the Mass” (CW11, § 296-448). Regarding the philosophy of engineering science including computers, logical positivism and phenomenology I treat them in several text as on the ethics in technology, on the process of computerization, and on debate itself. In my view all this tends to lead to “logical soccer”, a poor reenactment and analogy of the misunderstood and endless theological debate on the Filioque (subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity), where today the most analytically or rhetorically gifted and persevering party wins the game.

 

 

 

===============================

 

 

 

KRISTER RENARD’S WAY TO CHRISTIANISM (in Swedish)

 

 

Link to the article on Renard’s site.

 

 

 

===============================

 

 

 

NN’s WAY TO ATHEISM (in Swedish)

 

 

Min utveckling till ateist

(dated 2021-10-01)

 

Kristo initierade den här uppsatsen genom att fråga mig hur det kom sig att Krister Renard och han själv kan ha kommit på fel spår:

 

”Råkade se Krister Renards " utvecklingsberättelse" och då tänkte jag att du numera som pensionär och ut- samt inflyttad kan berätta på sådana som jag hur du gjort för att få det ihop - och var Krister gick fel så att jag inte fortsätter i samma misstag: https://www.gluefox.com/krist/mvaeg.shtm. ”

 

Föreliggande skrift är ett försök till svar på den frågan. Jag börjar med min egen utveckling och kommenterar sedan Kristers skrift. I en bilaga bifogar jag en lista med argument mot Guds existens, argument som spelat en stor roll för mitt ställningstagande som ateist.

 

 

1 Min utveckling

 

Som man lätt kan notera är ens livsåskådning i stor utsträckning beroende på den kultur man lever i. I mitt fall är det inget undantag. Min världsåskådning har direkt påverkats av min uppväxtmiljö men det kunde ha blivit annorlunda. Mina farföräldrar var ljumt kristna såvitt jag förstår även om jag inte har något konkret som stöder min uppfattning. Min far var det definitivt. Vi läste julevangeliet på julafton, han gick i kyrkan på första advent, men han propagerade inte för kristendom.

 

Min mors familj var mer komplex. Min morfar var uttalat ateist. Han var matematiker och mycket intresserat av fysik och forskade på fritiden i kvantfysik. Han vägrade att gå med i kyrkan när min mamma döptes vilket medförde att prästen titulerade min mormor som ”Fröken XXX” [anonym], något uppseendeväckande på den tiden. Morfars syster, faster YYY [anonym], var en stridande kristen. Hon blev med tiden diakonissa på Ersta. Hur relationen var mellan dem vet jag inte då morfar dog när jag var ett år gammal. Min mor var ambivalent, kanske en agnostiker. Hon gillade inte det religiösa och vid sin begravning ville hon inte ha med någon ”prälle” men hon hävdade inte sin ståndpunkt och vår familj präglades av min fars ljumma kristendom och hänsyn till faster YYYs känslor. Min mor läste aftonbön med min bror och mig och att vi skulle konfirmeras var självklart.

 

Min religiösa påverkan började i småskolan med berättelser ur framför allt gamla testamentet. Jag har vaga minnen av att en teckning jag gjorde med Jakobs stege. I realskolan hade vi kristendomskunskap vars enda bestående minne vara att vi var tvungna att lära oss psalmverser utantill. En mardröm för en person med dåligt minne. I skolan hade vi morgonbön tio minuter varje dag. Jag minns att vi sjöng psalmer för min bror spelade orgel ibland. Vid femton års ålder konfirmerades jag. Då var jag redan ateist och tyckte det hela var ett tråkigt tvång. När jag fyllde arton gick genast ut ur svenska kyrkan. När vi flyttade ned till Sörmland gick jag in igen eftersom jag tyckte att jag hade en viss samhörighet med kyrkan som var viktigare på landet.

 

Om man ser på min ideologiska utveckling så trodde jag på Gud tills jag var kanske tretton år.  Då läste jag en kort bok som jag hittade på Stadsbiblioteket. Jag gick ofta dit då huvudbiblioteket låg en kort promenad hemifrån. Efter intyg från min klassföreståndare (!) befanns jag tillräckligt mogen att låna på vuxenavdelningen vilken jag besökte ofta i den åldern. Boken behandlade Ockhams rakkniv, kanske relaterat till religion, jag minns inte. Eftersom jag inte såg några skäl för att Gud existerade och jag aldrig hade upplevt några religiösa känslor beslöt jag att det var meningslöst att tro på någon Gud. Jag har ett minne från var jag var när jag fattade det beslutet men det kanske är en efterkonstruktion. Från den stunden var jag ateist. Jag tror inte att jag berättade det för någon men jag hade god kontakt med min mor och hon insåg det nog snart. När jag var arton gick jag som sagt ur kyrkan men då var faster Nick död.

 

En del av min livsåskådning beror på att jag tidigt inte förstod mig på talet om fri vilja. Jag formulerade det inte så då men det handlade i grunden om det. I tonåren retade jag mig på glorifieringen av Albert Schweizer. Han var en belgisk missionär som hade barnhem i Afrika. Jag tyckte vördnaden för honom det var överdriven. Han var väl en sådan som tyckte om att vara missionär och att det var det som var viktigt för honom. Det var väl inget märkvärdigt. När jag var 22 år gammal tänkte jag igenom det här med fri vilja. Oberoende om man är skapt av naturen eller av en Gud så är man som man är och om man kan ändra på sig beror det endast på att man är skapt så att man kan göra det. Det verkar vara omöjligt att kunna stiga ur sig själv och skapa om sig om man inte har förutsättningarna för det. Det finns ingen fri vilja var min slutsats och i bortåt femtio år tills jag började läsa filosofi levde jag i förställningen att de flesta människor och i alla fall de flesta filosofer höll med.

 

Min ateism befästes under tonåren. Skola och konfirmation påverkad mig inte. Jag såg Jesus som en ganska odräglig figur och den kristna tron som en fantastisk berättelse med en mängd konstiga åsikter med t.ex. en Gud som var allsmäktig men försökte låtsas att han inte var det för att folk frivilligt skulle älska honom. Detta krävde fri vilja men den trodde jag definitivt inte på.

 

I gymnasiet och på KTH var de flesta kamrater ateister tror jag. Det pratades inte mycket om religion. Det fanns dock två undantag. Jag umgicks en tid med en teknolog som tillhörde pingströrelsen och vi diskuterade några kvällar hans religion. När jag frågade vad han skulle tänka om jag kom med ett argument som var övertygande. Han svarade att då var jag djävulen. Klarspråk. Jag påpekade att han därmed hade gjort sig garderad mot allt som kunde förändra hans tro men det var han medveten om. Det andra undantaget var när jag började mina licentiatstudier på Teletransmissionsteknik. (Jag ändrade mig till ADB senare). Jag kom i kontakt med en doktorand som bodde i närheten av mig på Rörstrandsgatan. Vi pratade religion och han bjöd in mig till en studiecirkel i Bibelkunskap som de hade i den lägenhet han delade med tre andra kristna. Jag umgicks en del i hans krets tills det hela rann ut i sanden. Lärde jag mig något av detta? Jag tror inte det, lite mer om Bibelkunskap men jag uppfattade inte några övertygande argument för den kristna läran.

 

Under fyra fem år från jag var 19 år var jag med i en ungdomskör, senare motettkör, i Markuskyrkan i Björkhagen. Vi sjöng på ungefär var tredje högmässa så jag bör ha bevistat över femtio högmässor med tillhörande textläsning och predikningar men jag uppsnappade inte mycket och aldrig något intressant. Däremot var det trevligt att sjunga och vi hade mycket roligt tillsammans. De flesta körmedlemmar var kristna men vi diskuterade aldrig religion.

 

Mitt främsta engagemang i diskussion med kristna kom när Credoakademin startade ett diskussionsforum 2007. Det var igång till 2013 och jag gjorde över 1500 diskussionsinlägg där. Jag har sökt liknande forum på engelskspråkiga siter men har aldrig hittat något motsvarande i antal deltagare, en någotsånär jämn fördelning mellan kristna och ateister, långa välgenomtänkta inlägg och ett artigt tonläge. Inläggen var nästan aldrig kortare än fem rader och ibland flera sidor långa. Mest intressanta var mina debatter om moral med Mats Selander, en av lärarna på akademin och sedermera grundare och ordförande för Kristna Värdepartiet. En annan intressant debatt var när jag diskuterade makro-evolution med Björn Nissen, en kristen gymnasielärare. Trots ett hundratal inlägg under mer än ett år och ett ömsesidigt försök att förstå varandra hade vi inte kommit till slut på diskussionen när forumet lades ned. Våra inlägg fyllde nästan en A4 pärm. Det var mycket lärorikt.

 

Jag har på senare tid diskuterat lite på forumet Evidence for God from Science.

 

Min sista läroperiod var genom min gode vän Kristo som tipsat mig om diverse artiklar på nätet, påvliga encyklikor, böcker av Craig, artiklar om Pascals vad mm.

 

Genom de aktiviteter från skolgång till nätdiskussioner tycker jag mig ha fått en god uppfattning om kristen tro. Trots ihärdigt sökande har jag inte funnit några hållbara argument för en Gudstro generellt eller en Kristen tro speciellt. Däremot har jag funnit ett flertal, enligt mig konklusiva argument emot. Detta är min uppfattning men jag inser att det inte hjälper att jag tycker att argumenten är hållbara i en diskussion med någon som inte tycker det.

 

Nedan i en bilaga har jag listat de argument som jag tycker är viktigast. När jag bedömer argumenten så tillämpar jag mitt eget förnuft och min egen moral. En teist kan alltid säga ungefär så här: ”Men lille vän, du skall inte tro att du förstår allt och Guds vägar är outgrundliga och bortom människors förstånd. Vad är du för en som tror att du vet bättre än Gud.” Svaret är att jag inte kan utgå från att Gud finns när jag försöker avgöra om han finns eller ej, det vore cirkulärt. 

 

 

2. Mina synpunkter på Krister Renards utvecklingsberättelse

 

Både Kristo och Krister uppger att de varit ateister men sedan blivit kristna. Kristos utveckling vet jag för lite om för att kommentera men Krister har skrivit ganska utförligt så jag nöjer mig den senares.

 

Jag noterar några saker när jag läser Kristers beskrivning hur han kom till tro. Krister verkar inte fått någon större insyn i kristendomen som ung. Han konfirmerades t.ex, inte. Mer märkligt är att han inte verkar förstått de vetenskaper som ateism och humanism stödjer sig på främst biologi. Det är anmärkningsvärt då han har djupa kunskaper i fysik. Min uppfattning är att han som ateist måste han haft en ganska ogenomtänkt syn på sin världsbild. 

 

En detaljerad kommentarer till Krister Renards ”Min väg till Vägen”

 

”Efter studier i Örebro och Uppsala hamnade jag 1974 på Stockholms Universitet för att ägna mig åt forskarstudier i elementarpartikelfysik. Allt eftersom min insikt i fysikens fundament ökade, insåg jag att vetenskapens grund inte var så objektiv som jag dittills trott. Jag började förstå att vetenskapen t ex inte kunde förklara sig själv, utan att den utgick från ett antal obevisbara antaganden och värderingar. Många frågor dök upp. Varför var det överhuvudtaget möjligt att beskriva verkligheten med hjälp av matematik och logik? Varifrån kom den oerhörda och förbluffande ordning och harmoni som ges av naturlagarna? Hade det bara råkat bli så när universum uppstod av en slump, eller fanns det kanske en annan förklaring? Och hur kom det sig att så pass många framstående forskare, även om de kanske inte direkt var kristna, ändå trodde på en skapande intelligens i universum. Att framstående fysiker som Einstein, von Neuman och Eddington var kristna eller hade starka sympatier för den kristna tron, var svårt att förena med påståendet att vetenskapen hade motbevisat Guds existens. De om några borde väl känna till vetenskapens möjligheter och begränsningar. Mer och mer insåg jag att ateismen lika mycket var en tro som kristendomen. Att hävda att vetenskapen bevisat att Gud inte finns, framstod också alltmer som ett cirkelresonemang. Man utgick där från att allt som hade objektiv existens kunde "mätas och vägas", och beskrivas och förklaras med hjälp av logik och matematik. Det som inte kunde observeras och beskrivas på detta sätt, bortdefinierades automatiskt som inbillning eller vidskepelse. Problemet med detta materialistiska betraktelsesätt var emellertid att materialismens eget grundantagande självt i så fall också var inbillning eller vidskepelse, eftersom detta antagande varken kunde bevisas logiskt eller härledas genom observation. För att gälla, förutsatte således den materialistiska utgångspunkten sin egen giltighet. Slutsatsen att Gud inte kunde existera, eftersom han inte inrymdes i den vetenskapliga beskrivningen, byggde helt enkelt på antagandet att han inte fanns. ”

 

Jag har aldrig, vad jag minns, läst om att vetenskapen har bevisat att Gud inte finns. Det måste vara någon oseriös skrift.

 

Ateism är framför allt brist på tro. Alltså ”Jag tror inte att Gud finns” snarare än ”Jag tror att Gud inte finns” men skillnaden är inte stor.

 

”Det fina med sanningen är att den håller att ifrågasättas. Även om jag inte förstod allt jag läste, blev jag till min stora förvåning mer och mer övertygad om att Bibeln beskriver en objektiv, absolut verklighet. De motsägelser jag trodde Bibeln skulle vara full av, lös med sin frånvaro och den världsbild som målades upp, verkade förbluffande väl stämma överens med den verkliga världen. Jag har alltid varit en flitig läsare och periodvis fullkomligen slukat böcker av alla de slag, både skön- och facklitteratur. Många böcker jag läst hade gjort anspråk på att kunna förklara tillvarons gåtor, men jag hade ännu inte hittat någon som levt upp till detta. De flesta s k svar gick ut på att människan var en biologisk maskin och att varken jaget eller ondskan egentligen fanns. Inget av detta tyckte jag stämde med verkligheten. Om människan var en maskin, varför upplevde hon sig då som en människa och inte som en maskin? Även om en människa möjligen skulle kunna uppleva sig själv som en maskin, verkade det osannolikt att en maskin skulle kunna uppleva sig själv som en människa. Om det var sant att människan bara var en maskin, kunde dessutom knappast en bok som påstod detta vara speciellt intressant. Ger materialismen en korrekt verklighetsbeskrivning, är ju allt förutbestämt genom fysikens lagar. Men är allt förutbestämt, är därmed också alla böcker ointressanta. Innehållet i dem är ju då till hundra procent ett resultat av obevekligt lagbundna processer och inte av någon skapande handling. Och inte heller hjälper det att införa slumpen som en faktor. I så fall är ju allt vi säger och skriver till hundra procent resultatet av absoluta naturlagar i kombination med slump. Inte heller i detta fall finns någon anledning att tro att en bok som företräder materialismen skulle ha något meningsfullt att säga. Endast om materialismen är falsk, är det således möjligt att meningsfullt argumentera för att den är sann. Detta är materialismens stora dilemma. Det hela påminner en smula om en filosof jag läste om, som skrev bok efter bok, där han försökte bevisa att varje form av mänsklig kommunikation, inklusive verbal sådan, är omöjlig”

 

Ytterst märkligt resonemang. Jag håller inte med om enda mening. Bara två exempel: 1. Tag en godtycklig bok som du tycker är meningsfull. Om du plötslig får ett vattentätt bevis för att världen är deterministisk och materialistisk, skulle då boken plötsligt bli ointressant för dig?

2. Vad är det hindrar att en helt materialistisk process skapar? Datorer kan också skapa, t.ex. musik. Vackra solnedgångar, är de inte skapade?

 

”Ett annat svårt problem tyckte jag var vår absoluta övertygelse om människovärdets okränkbarhet. Var människan bara produkten av en blind evolution, kunde hon knappast ha något speciellt värde. I "kampen för tillvaron" sållas ju de svaga och sjuka individerna bort för att arten hela tiden skall förbättras. Hur kunde då vi, som till hundra procent var ett resultat av evolutionen, själva uppleva att denna utsållning var fel? Var människan höjd över evolutionsprocesserna? Varifrån kom denna känsla? Och varför var människor som trodde på evolutionen och "den starkares överlevnad" så upprörda över vad Hitler gjorde. Han hjälpte ju bara evolutionen på traven genom att lite snabbare sortera bort "olämpliga anlag" (jag tänker då på nazisternas dödshjälpsprogram där ca 200 000 långtidssjuka och förståndshandikappade tyskar mördades genom svält, gasning och giftinjektioner). Här fanns en motsägelse som de flesta människor verkade totalt omedvetna om.”

 

Människans okränkbarhet är lätt att härleda ur konsekvensetiska resonemang. Utan denna princip blir livet sämre att leva. Tanken att Hitler hjälpte evolutionen "på traven" är orimlig. Evolutionen har inget mål. Dessutom är evolutionens slogan inte "den starkes överlevnad", en nazistisk ide, utan "survival of the fittest" dvs den som är mest anpassad. Hitler var uppenbarligen inte väl anpassad. Hur kan Krister säga så okunniga påståenden?

 

”Ju mer jag läste i Bibeln, desto mer övertygades jag om att där fanns tillfredsställande svar på alla de filosofiska frågor som jag själv och de flesta andra människor ställt sig i alla tider: Vem är människan? Varifrån kommer ondskan? Finns det någon mening med livet? Etc. Och med svar menar jag då inte bara terapeutiska svar, dvs svar som kanske får oss att må lite bättre en stund, utan svar som är sanna. Som talar om hur det verkligen förhåller sig, vad som är objektivt sant. ”

 

Meningen med livet är att leva och låta leva. Ondskan förklaras av evolutionen. Hur Krister vet att Bibelns svar är objektivt sanna förklarar han inte.

 

Krister har skrivit omfattande om Kristendom och biologi. Mycket är tänkvärt och intressant medan annat är okunnigt eller hårt vinklat. Här ovan har jag endast gjort några få nedslag. Ett exempel dock:

 

Jag läser bland Kristers uppsatser om evolution och hittar t.ex. detta (I uppsatsen om Alternativa teorier):

 

” ….. Svårigheten nu är att förklara hur sådana stora och samtidigt positiva förändringar kan ske genom en enda slumpmässig mutation[7]. Det är t ex synnerligen svårt att förstå hur ett primitivt, användbart synsystem (ljuskänsliga celler, nervkopplingar plus en hjärna som kan reagera adekvat på informationen från de ljuskänsliga cellerna) skulle kunna uppstå genom en enstaka mutation. Sannolikheten för detta måste vara i det närmaste noll. Och saknas en enda av de nödvändiga komponenterna, ger systemet ingen urvalsfördel. Ljuskänsliga celler som inte kan skicka sin information vidare är till ingen nytta ur överlevnadssynpunkt. Och synnerver utan vare sig öga eller syncentrum i hjärnan är inte heller mycket att ha.[8]”

 

Det är obegripligt att Krister inte förstår det uppenbara. Antag ett primitivt djur som har känselceller på huden som är kopplade via ett nervsystem till en primitiv hjärna. Djuret vet att en signal från dessa känselceller innebär fara. Antag också att det vore en fördel för djuret att leva i mörker. Om det då sker en mutation i en känselcell som gör att cellen blir an aning ljuskänslig är denna mutation positiv för individen eftersom den kommer att indikera fara om djuret kommer ut i ljuset. Individens avkomma kommer att ha en överlevnadsfördel och den muterade genen kommer att sprida sig i populationen. Så småningom kommer det andra mutationer t.ex. som gör att ljuskänsliga celler samlas i en grupp vilket är fördelaktigt för att djuret blir känsligare för att avgöra riktning, att det bildas en grop med ljuskänsliga celler vilket ytterligare ökar riktningskänsligheten, att en lins skapas etc. fram till ett fungerande öga.

Men ingen som förstår evolutionen tror att ögat uppkom genom ”en enstaka mutation”.

 

Allmänt sett är Kristers förståelse för och kunskap om biologi och evolution bristfällig. De starkaste argumenten för evolutionen är inte fossiler utan de mikrobiologiska med DNA.

 

3 Sammanfattning

 

Att försöka svara på Kristos fråga: "Vad gjord vi för fel?", förutsätter att Kristo och Krister verkligen gjorde fel. Jag tror det men det kan ju vara jag som har fel. Om jag skall leta efter orsaker till att det blev som det blev kan jag ju bara gissa. Arv och miljö täcker ju det mesta och är relevant om man omformulerar det till personlighet och omgivning/kultur. Någon mer detaljerad uppfattning tror jag är omöjlig om man inte i detalj känner en person.

 

En faktor som jag framhållit ovan är kunskap om evolutionen. Jag har hört få kristna som verkar ha en djupare förståelse för evolutionen. Däremot många som anger människans uppkomst som ett starkt skäl för sin kristna tro. Ett memento kan kanske vara att den yrkesgrupp som lär ha det lägsta antalet religiösa är evolutionsbiologer.

 

Om jag vänder på frågeställningen och funderar över varför jag är ateist noterar jag att för mig är den ontologiska frågan viktigast. Många kristna säger till ateister ungefär att du ”vill inte” tro att Gud finns ungefär som om ateisten egentligen tror men tycker att det är obekvämt att tro. Jag vet att det finns personer som uttrycker sig så men det är totalt främmande för mig.  Om jag skulle hitta övertygande skäl för existensen av en Gud vore det väl konstigt om jag inte tog konsekvenserna av ett sådant fynd. Det har med rationalitet att göra. Den andra sidan av saken är att när jag nu inte hittar några goda skäl för en gudstro så är det orimligt för mig att börja tro. Annorlunda uttryckt, nedan har jag angivit runt tjugo viktiga skäl för att inte tro på en Gud. Så länge jag inte hittar motargument för åtminstone några av dessa skäl är det uteslutet att jag skulle kunna ändra min inställning.

 

 

BILAGA

 

Argument mot Guds existens

 

Denna lista över argument är långt ifrån fullständig. Någonstans på nätet har jag sett en lista på över hundra argument men många av dem var inte särskilt övertygande. Här har jag begränsat mig till de som jag tycker är viktigaste.  Jag har bara skrivit så mycket som jag tror behövs för att förstå argumentet. En fullständig argumentation vore oerhört mer omfattande. Inga argument är nya förutom möjligtvis 3c.  3e har jag aldrig hört i den formuleringarna.

 

Argumenten riktar sig mot en allvetande, omnipotent och god Gud.

 

Jag börjar med de viktigaste skäl för religion som jag uppfattat. Många av dessa är negeringar av de argument mot religion jag anger senare. Då anger jag det numret inom parentes.

 

0. Skäl för en tro på en Gud.

 

0a (1c) Uppfostran och kultur. Detta är antagligen det viktigaste argumentet. Människan är ett flockdjur och det krävs mycket för att gå emot den uppfattning man uppfostrats i och som omfattas av en ganska enig omgivning. Ett underargument är tron på auktoriteter där man som auktoriteter valt personer från sin egen kultur.

 

0b.(1b) Egna uppenbarelser. Många har starka upplevelser av Guds närhet.

 

0c  (1e) Övertygelsen om att den kristna läran (Bibeln) är sann, Detta är relaterat till auktoritetsargumentet. Referens till historien som verifierar vissa påståenden i heliga skrifter.

 

0d. Meningen med livet. Utan Guds närvaro är livet meningslöst.

 

0e. (1b)En känsla att de måste finnas något mer än det materiella, något andligt. Att man kan överskrida det vardagliga. En känsla av övernaturlighet (Artur Köstler: oceankänsla, som även ateister kan känna)

 

0f. (2b) Uppfattningen att det behövs en Gud eller åtminstone en konstruktör (designer) för att förklara

- universums uppkomst
- livets uppkomst
- livets utveckling (t.ex. makro-evolution).

- medvetandet

- moral

- underverk

 

0g  Behov av trygghet (och visshet) I en otrygg värld kan religion vara det enda hoppet om en bättre framtid. ”Fader Leo Booth varnar i sin bok When God Becomes a Drug för att bli ”beroende av den visshet, säkerhet eller känsla av trygghet som vår tro skänker” (Peter Watson, Den Gudlösa Tidsåldern, sid 498).

 

0h (2e) Ett socialt behov. Ett behov av gemenskap 

 

0i (2f) <En tro på Gud motverkar egoism vilken försvagar det demokratiska systemet.

Detta framförde en kines till mig. Han trodde att en kristen lära skulle motverka den starka egoismen i det kinesiska samhället. Mot detta talar den utbredda egoismen i det amerikanska samhället trots att det i hög utsträckning är kristet.

 

0j  (1f) Gudsbevis, t.ex. Aquinas fem gudsbevis.

Jag tror dock få personer har detta som en primär bevekelsegrund. Gudsbevisen används snarare för att intellektuellt försvara en gudstro som redan finns.

 

På siten Evidence for God by Science har några personer uttryckt varför de tror på Gud. En person anger egna upplevelser, tro på Bibeln samt att universum och evolutionen kräver en konstruktör. En annan anger konstruktörsargumentet men citerar flitigt Bibeln. En tredje refererar främst till auktoritetsargumentet.

 

Här kommer listan med argument mot Guds existens.

 

1. Det finns inga positiva indikationer på att det finns någon Gud

 

1a. Inga vetenskapliga bevis

Det finns inga vetenskapliga bevis eller vetenskapliga undersökningar som visar på existensen av en Gud. Det finns några få undersökningar som visar att förbön hjälper men de är metodologiskt omtvistade. Det finns andra finns undersökningar som i specifika fall visat att förbön inte hjälper vid sjukdom. Om det finns en Gud borde finnas mängder med bevis för hans existens. Att det inte finns några vetenskapliga bevis emot Guds existens är inget argument.

 

1b. Personliga Uppenbarelser

Sådana finns i alla religioner men vad bevisar dessa? Endast att man haft uppenbarelser. Det finns dessutom forskning som korrelerar upplevelser med fysisk påverkan t.ex. elektronisk stimulering av hjärnan.

 

1c. Traditionen

Många anser att en långvarig tradition, lärda män, kyrkofäder etc. borgar för att det måste finnas en sanning. Detta får väl karaktäriseras som ”from förhoppning”. Dessutom finns det långvarig tradition inom många religioner vilket visar att argumentet är hopplöst. Under förutsättning att endast en religion är sann måste argumenten vara fel för alla de övriga.

 

1d. Sociala miljön

Hur kommer det sig att det är så stark korrelation mellan vilken religion man omfattar och den religion som är förhärskande i det land man är uppfödd i. Svaret verkar vara att omgivningens påverkan är viktigare än sanningshalten i budskapet. Man kan uppenbarligen bli uppfostrad till vilken religion som helst bara man växer upp i en miljö som omfattar den religionen. Sedan finns det alltid en mindre grupp skeptiker som ofta blir ateister.

 

1e. Historiska

Historiska belägg finns för detaljer i många läror. Både Jesus och Mohammed har sannolikt funnits och delvis gäller säkert att ”Bibeln hade rätt” men detta gör bara att man inte kan avfärda t.ex. bibeln som bara en saga. Detta bevisar på intet sätt den kristna läran. Vissa kritiska händelser som t.ex. att Jesus verkligen dog på korset går inte att verifiera.

 

1f.  Filosofiska

Det finns ett flertal s.k. gudsbevis men de flesta bevis innehåller en förutsättning som är lika innehållsrik som förklaring att Gud finns. Bevisen tillför alltså inget. 

 

 

2. Det behövs ingen Gud.

 

2a.  Det behövs ingen Gud för att förklara universums uppkomst. (materia och lagar)

En förklaring till universums uppkomst är en Gud men om man tror att Gud finns måste man förklara Guds uppkomst (eller varför han finns) vilket är lika svårt. Man kan argumentera att Gud är oändlig och oändliga entiteter behöver inte förklaras. Då kan man lika gärna argumentera att det finns ett superuniversum (multiversum) som existerat oändligt länge och som inte behöver förklaras.

 

2b.  Det behövs ingen Gud för att förklara livets uppkomst fram till vår dagar.

Vetenskapen kan förklara mycket, mer o mer av

-  Universums utveckling, några miljondelars av en sekund efter Big Bang fram till dagens Tellus. Det finns även vissa teorier enligt vilka världen inte började vid Big Bang. Jag har läst att de eventuellt kan verifieras experimentellt i en framtid.
-  livets uppkomst

-  evolutionen fram till dagens Homo Sapiens.

Vetenskapen kan inte förklara allt men huvuddragen och en del detaljer. Det man vet minst om är livets uppkomst men det finns inget som talar för att man inte kommer lösa den frågan inom säg hundra år. Intelligent-design-teorin, ID,  hävdar att det finns utvecklingssteg som vetenskapen inte kan förklara men de är hela tiden på reträtt. Det finns inget känt behov av ID

 

2c.  Det behövs ingen Gud för att förklara moralen. Det går att förklara en moral som leder till t.ex. den gyllne regeln utifrån ett evolutionärt och humanistiskt synsätt. Vi får då visserligen ingen strikt objektiv moral men det är i vissa lägen bättre med en subjektiv moral. 

 

2d.  Det behövs ingen Gud för att förklara vardagslivet

Det finns inga vetenskapliga bevis eller vetenskapliga undersökningar som visar på att existensen av en Gud är nödvändig. Det finns gott om subjektiva uppfattningar om att Gud har gripit in men där finns alltid andra alternativa förklaringar (oftast slumpen).

 

2e.  Det behövs ingen Gud för att underlätta livet för människan privat.

Detta är den enda punkt där man, enligt mig, kan vara osäker . Det finns gott om människor som i tron på en Gud finner tröst och meningsfullhet i livet. Det finns kanske ännu fler som säger så. Å andra sidan görs det gott om illgärningar i namnet av en gudom och mycket annat ont motiveras i tron på en Gud och en hel del människor mår dåligt för de tror inte helhjärtat. Det är en öppen fråga om det positiva eller negativa överväger. Hur som borde man på något sätt sträva bort från dogmatiska religioner med starka åsikter om hur människorna skall bete sig, t.ex. kristendom och islam. I stället bör kanske new-age liknande och vissa österländska religioner uppmuntras. Här vet jag för lite för att ha någon genomtänkt åsikt.

 

2f. En Gud är inte positiv för samhället

I det moderna samhället är religion ingen positiv kraft generellt sett. Det finns gott om länder där religionens inverkan är klart negativ. Många av dessa är kanske inte kristna men det gäller även många kristna länder. Jag tänker bl.a. på sådana frågor som rättssystem och rätt till abort, homosexuellas ställning, yttrandefrihet.

 

2g. Det behövs ingen Gud för att förklara religionens uppkomst

Religionens uppkomst beror enligt modern forskning  på förhållanden i de förhistoriska samhällen med stammar om några hundra personer. De låg i ständiga lågintensiva krig mot varandra och förmågan till religion uppkom evolutionärt och kulturellt som ett svar på behovet att få alla medlemmar i stammen att vara villiga att offra sig för stammens bästa. (en mycket koncis sammanfattning) . Se bl.a. boken The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures  av Nicholas Wade.

 

 

3 Argument för att det inte finns någon Gud

 

3a. Världen är precis som om Gud aldrig funnits

 

Varför är Gud inte uppenbar?

Förutsätt att Gud har skapat världen och människorna, vilket uppenbart är komplicerat. Förutsätt också att  han vill att vi skall dyrka honom (det var därför han sände Jesus mm.) Varför har han då inte gjort sig besvär att visa sig ordentligt. Jag läste någonstans en fråga varför man inte hittar Maxwells ekvationer inristade på månen eller ett jättelikt krucifix kretsande runt jorden? Om han nu finns, varför har han gömt sig så bra så att bevisen för hans existens är ungefär så bra som man kan förvänta sig om han inte funnes. (Detta argument är generellt för alla religioner).

 

3b. Det finns inga förutsägelser i Bibeln som gör att Bibeln står över andra samtida skrifter i att förmedla kunskap

 

Varför har Bibeln två skapelseberättelse som båda ligger långt ifrån vad vi vet idag? Varför finns det ingenting i Bibeln som ger någon kunskap till människorna om hur världen verkligen är beskaffad t.ex. jordens ålder, solsystemets uppbyggnad eller något om sjukdomar, hygien, födelsekontroll mm nyttigheter?  Tänk om någon kunnig människa från 2000-talet hade fått skriva en bok på hundra sidor för 2000 år sedan, en bok om sådant man borde känna till - vilka enorma framsteg det hade kunnat ge. Varför meddelade Gud inte denna kunskap på den tiden? Om Gud har initierat bibeln har han misslyckats kapitalt även med lågt ställda förväntningar.

 

3c. Designargumentet emot Guds skapande..

 

All forskning pekar på att allt levande utvecklats med små små steg. När människor utvecklar nya produkter sker det aldrig i små små steg. I nya produkter tar man erfarenheter från många håll till skillnad från naturlig utveckling. Människan är den enda intelligenta designern vi har direkt erfarenhet av och hon utvecklar inte i små små steg. Varför skulle Gud skapat naturen så att det ser ut som om den utvecklats i små små steg?  Således verkar det inte som om någon intelligent designer, t.ex. Gud, ligger bakom naturlig utveckling.

 

3d. Ofullkomligheter i skapelsen

 

Det fins många ofullkomligheter i människans konstruktion. Den mest kända är kanske placeringen av luftstrupen framför matstrupen. Evolutionärt är det förklarligt men varför skulle en intelligent designer göra så?

 

Varför skapade Gud t.ex. smittkoppor, malaria, polio? Det är sjukdomar som människan har utrotat eller är på väg att utrota. Vad är tanken med att först skapa sjukdomarna och sedan låta människan utrota dem?

 

3e. En kristen Gud måste ha extremt mycket högre funktionalitet än ett multiversa.

 

I alla fall i vissa versioner av kristendom är Gud inte bara aktiv och omnipotent utan kan förutse alla detaljer av hela Universum för all tid framåt – en formidabel uppgift.

Ett multi-universa (multiversa) kan vara avsevärt mycket enklare, Se Not 1

 

 

4. Motsägelser i lärorna

 

Dessa argument är i stort sett specifika för varje religion. Jag behandlar här endast kristendomen och endast mycket översiktligt,

 

4a. Teodicéproblemet

Hur kan Gud vara god och allsmäktig på en gång. Det finns gott om bevis för att världen inte är god. Problemet är väl känt och det finns mängder med försök till förklaringar men jag har aldrig sett någon nöjaktig förklaring dvs någon förklaring som skulle anses nöjaktig om en människa handlade på samma sätt.

 

4b. Synd o fri vilja, himmel o helvete

Enligt teologin har Gud givit människan en fri vilja så att hon kan välja mellan att göra det goda och det onda. Enligt vissa uppfattningar kommer hon till helvetet om hon syndar och skall där pinas i evighet. Men var det inte Gud som skapade människan? Det här argumentet är relaterat till 4a. Det generella problemet med fri vilja är också tillämpbart. Hur kan man skapa något ur intet. Alltså, givet en människa egenskaper vid en viss tidpunkt, givet hennes omgivning och givet ev. slump, hur kan hon välja att vara något annat än vad hon är?

 

4c. Konstig lära

med sonen och den helige anden. Vem har satt upp spelreglerna ”Så älskade Gud människorna så att han utgav sin enfödde son .... ”. Relaterat till 4a och 4b.

 

4d. Orimliga detaljer i läran. Mycket skissartat

4d1. Tolkningar av Bibeln är relaterade till det kulturella klimatet vid en viss tidpunkt. Om man håller med om detta påstående ger det orimliga följder, d:o om man inte håller med. Båda ståndpunkterna är orimliga (Bibeln är motsägelsefull)

4d2. Gamla testamentet.  Grym, hämndgirig, straffande Gud som endast är till för israeliter.

4d3. Nya testamentet.  Jesus egocentrisk.

4d4. Katolicismens och många andra kristnas inställning till homo, abort, preventivmedel strider mot humanism.

4d5. Endast de som tror på Jesus kommer till himlen. Vad händer med de som aldrig hört talas om Jesus, t.ex. de som levde innan Jesu födelse?

 

 

5 Argument emot Guds existens som jag tycker är dåliga

 

5a.  Bibeln är motsägelsefull då den berättar om mirakel men mirakel strider mot naturlagarna.

 

Min synpunkt är att om Gud kunde skapa naturlagarna så är det väl inte konstigt att han kan upphäva dem emellanåt.

 

 

Underbilaga

 

 

Kommentar till argument 3e. En kristen Gud måste ha extremt mycket högre funktionalitet än ett multiversa.

 

I det nedanstående använder jag programmeringsterminologi för att illustrera en diskussion om mitt påstående. Det är inte ett förslag till hur det verkligen gått till.

 

Ett Multiversa är en entitet som skapar en mycket (oändligt) stor mängd universa. För att kunna göra det krävs bl.a. en funktion som kan skapa en singularitet som utvecklas till ett universum som karaktäriseras av ett antal grundläggande konstanter:

 

SKAPASINGULARITET(k1, k2, ….. kN)

där kn är N olika universalkonstanter.

 

Det enda ett multiversum måste göra är att köra följande algoritm:

 

REPEAT LOOP FOREVER

FOR I= 1 TO N:  kI= RND ()

SKAPASINGULARITET(k1, k2, ….. kN)

ENDLOOP

 

Vad algoritmen gör är att i en loop som genomlöpes ett oändligt antal gånger det först tilldelas slumpmässiga värden till N stycken universalkonstanter som sedan används för att skapa ett nytt universum.

 

En deistisk Gud initierar ett universum en gång men är sedan passiv. Den måste då finjustera värdena k1 til kN så att de är lämpliga för en utveckling av liv vilket är en formidabel uppgift.

Sedan skapar den ett universum med hjälp av funktionen SKAPASINGULARITET

 

En teistisk Gud har samma uppgift som en deistiskt Gud, att starta upp ett universum som är justerat för utveckling av liv men som dessutom övervakar det i minsta detalj samt griper in i enskilda människors liv vilket är ytterligare extremt mer omfattande

 

Slutsatsen är ett multiversum kräver klart mindre intelligens än en deistisk eller teistisk Gud.

 

Jag har avsiktligt inte talat om komplexitet hos de startande entiteterna eftersom en allsmäktig omnipotent Gud är enkel enligt Aquina men jag tar inte den diskussionen här.

 

 

 

=====================================

 

 

 

KRISTER RENARD’S RESPONSE TO NN’S COMMENTS (in Swedish)

 

 

From: Krister Renard

To: Kristo Ivanov Subject: NNs livsberättelse

Date-Sent: 12 February 2022

 

 

Hej Kristo!

 

Här kommer mina kommentarer till NNs berättelse och hans kritik av min egen sådan. Jag hade tänkt hålla det kort men det blev längre än jag trodde. Som jag skrev till dig är jag inte intresserad av någon diskussion. Jag upplever att en sådan vore helt meningslös. För att det skulle vara meningsfullt måste det åtminstone finnas någon beröringspunkt mellan de som diskuterar, vilket jag upplever inte finns. Alltså blir det bara retorik, missuppfattningar och ovilja att verkligen försöka förstå den andre. Jag skriver det jag skriver nedan mest för din skull men du får gärna skicka det till NN. Men det är ingen idé att han skriver till mig, eftersom jag inte kommer att läsa det och än mindre svara. Inte av personlig ovilja mot honom utan helt enkelt för att jag inte vill kasta bort min tid på det som är absolut, totalt, hundraprocentigt meningslöst.

 

 

Skulle jag detaljerat kommentera allt jag inte håller med om i NNs text, så skulle det här mailet vara på 500 sidor (minst). Så därför väljer jag att bara kommentera några utvalda delar (men kanske kommentera dessa lite mer i detalj).

 

 

Hans livsberättelse finns ingen anledning att kommentera, eftersom den helt enkelt är hans livsberättelse. Det jag möjligen kan påpeka är att för honom tycks att vara kristen huvudsakligen vara ett intellektuellt problem. Att tro på en uppsättning dogmer/postulat som man intellektuellt finner logiska och välgrundade och konsistenta. I mina ögon är att vara kristen, förutom att bejaka Bibelns Gud, att ha en relation med Skaparen, dvs med Jesus och därmed med Gud. Att ha fått möta Gud på ett personligt plan och veta att Gud är god och har omsorg om mig och alla människor. Bibeln liknar denna relation vid en kärleksrelation (t ex i Höga Visan, som både handlar om kärleken mellan man och kvinna och kärleken mellan Gud och människan). Tron innefattar, precis som kärlek, handlingar. Tro utan handlingar är död. Att vara kristen innebär inte enbart att ansluta sig till en uppsättning premisser (som man känner att man intellektuellt kan bejaka) eller att vara uppfylld av varma känslor av sympati och välvilja. Carola sjunger i en sång om de lidande barnen, "Save them your sympathy, without action it is lost. Den kristna kärleken är handling och inte enbart ljuva känslor. Att vara kristen är att lyda Gud, att vara Guds händer och fötter här på jorden. Att minska lidandet i världen och att sprida det glada budskapet om Guds försoning! Jesus säger i Matt 7:21:

 

"Icke kommer var och en in i himmelriket, som säger till mig 'Herre, Herre', utan den som gör min himmelske Faders vilja"

 

Att bli kristen kräver att man tar ett steg i tro (gör Guds vilja). Lika lite som man kan veta om kvantmekaniken är sann utan att själv vara kvantmekaniker, kan man veta om kristendomen är sann utan att själv vara kristen. För att bli kristen måste alltså ta ett steg i tro (innan man är helt säker på att den är sann). Kasta sig ut i det okända. Först när man gör Faderns vilja är man en kristen (sedan finns som tur är Guds förlåtelse om man irrar bort sig, vilket vi alla gör ibland). Först då vet man att Gud finns.

 

De flesta lekmän som vet något om kvantmekanik litar helt enkelt på vad de läst, dvs litar på att böcker eller föredragshållare ger en korrekt bild av kvantmekaniken. De kan inte själva avgöra om det de läst ger en korrekt bild av kvantmekaniken utan måste gå på magkänsla (är föredragshållaren t ex nobelpristagare i kvantmekanik, verkar det t ex rimligt att lita på vad denne säger i ämnet). Det är ju samma sak med kristen tro. Man kanske träffat kristna och attraherats av deras tro och eftersom de verkar vara fina människor som lever liv man själv vill leva, kanske man är beredd att ta detta trossteg. Men själva trossteget måste man ta ensam (kanske därför som att bli kristen liknas både vid att födas på nytt och att dö bort från sig själv -- vid båda dessa tillfällen i livet är man ju absolut ensam, även om man är omgiven av människor).

 

 

Jakob skriver i Jak 2:18 att tron måste få praktiska konsekvenser (Visa mig din tro utan gärningar så skall jag med mina gärningar visa dig min tro). Observera att i nästa vers (9) så skriver han "Du tror att Gud är en. Det gör du rätt i. Också de onda andarna tror det, och darrar." Dvs Djävulen tror också på Gud och känner till alla de kristna dogmerna. Men han är inte kristen för det! Trots att han inte bara tror, utan vet att Gud finns. För att vara kristen måste man stå på Guds sida. Här ser vi högt intelligenta människors förmåga att snubbla på sina egna versfötter. Genom att reducera allt till tvåvärd logik och tron att allt meningsfullt kan förstås utifrån denna, frånhänder man sig möjligheten att förstå de mest avgörande delarna av verkligheten (mänskligt och framför allt andligt sett). Jag misstänker att NN skulle förneka att det är så han resonerar, men ändå framgår det så klart när han berättar om sin väg bort från Gud.

 

Jesus säger i Mark 10: "Sannerligen, den som inte tar emot Guds rike som ett barn kommer aldrig dit in." Intellektet är ingen väg till Gud. Man måste komma som ett barn -- med ett öppet och ödmjukt sinne. Gud säger själv att det kristna budskapet för den intellektuelle ofta framstår som en dårskap. I Första Korintierbrevet skriver Paulus:

 

Det står skrivet (Paulus citerar här Jesaja 29:14): Jag skall göra de visas vishet om intet, och de förståndigas förstånd skall jag utplåna. Var finns nu de visa, de skriftlärda och denna världens kloka huvuden? Har inte Gud gjort världens vishet till dårskap? Ty eftersom världen, omgiven av Guds vishet, inte lärde känna Gud genom visheten, beslöt Gud att genom dårskapen i förkunnelsen rädda dem som tror. (1 Kor 1:19-21)

 

 

 

Men det som är dåraktigt för världen utvalde Gud för att låta de visa stå där med skam, och det som är svagt i världen utvalde Gud för att låta det starka stå där med skam, och det som världen ser ner på, det som ringaktas, ja, som inte finns till, just det utvalde Gud för att göra slut på det som finns till, så att ingen människa skulle kunna vara stolt inför Gud. (1 Kor 1:27-29)

 

 

 

Stoltheten kan inte Gud acceptera. Den står gud emot. Och stolthet är ofta högt intelligenta människors akilleshäl. För att bli kristen måste man böja sin knän inför Universums Skapare. NN har uppenbarligen inte förstått någonting av vad kristendomen innebär. Och vem Jesus är. Han har helt enkelt letat efter Gud på fel ställe. Ungefär som mannen som står på knä under en gatlykta och letar efter något. En förbipasserande frågar vad han letar efter och erbjuder sig att hjälpa till. Svaret blir att han letar efter sina nycklar. Men säger han, och pekar ut mot den mörka gatan,

 

-- Det var där jag antagligen tappade dem.

 

-- Man varför letar du här då, frågar den förbipasserande.

 

-- Därför att det är så mörkt därute, så man ser inget.

 

Detta brukar berättas som en rolig historia men utgör också en bra bild av många ateister som letar efter Gud. De letar bara där intellektets ljus (gatlyktan) lyser. eftersom allt annat i deras ögon är mörker. Dvs de letar helt enkelt på fel ställe och kommer aldrig att finna Gud, om de inte ändrar sig! Gud kommer inte att ändra sig.

 

 

Och så kommer jag till punkt 2, dvs NNs kommentarer till min egen väg till Gud.

 

NN tycker att det är märkligt att jag "inte verkar har förstått de vetenskaper som ateism och humanism stöder sig på". Han avser då främst biologi. Jag antar att han kommer fram till detta på grund av att jag drar andra slutsatser än vad han själv drar utifrån studiet av de levande organismerna. För honom tycks biologin framför allt handla om evolutionsbiologin. Samtidigt erkänner han att jag har djupa kunskaper i fysik (vilket jag har). Utifrån detta menar NN att jag har en ogenomtänkt syn på min världsbild (vad han nu menar med det -- hade han skrivit att jag har en ogenomtänkt världsbild hade jag förstått). Intressant är i alla fall att han erkänner att det främst är biologin som utgör stödet för ateismen och inte fysiken. På 1800-talet var det snarare tvärtom, där universum uppfattades som ett slags urverk som kunde förklaras med enkel mekanik medan livet uppfattades som mycket mer än kemi och fysik (ja man trodde t o m att livet krävde en icke materiell livssubstans för att kunna existera). Sedan dessa har de två tågen bytt spår och fysiken idag ger föga stöd för ateismen.

 

Intressant också att han nämner ateism och humanism i en och samma mening. Som om humanismen automatiskt vore kopplad till ateismen. Den ateistiska organisationen i Sverige anspelar ju också på detta genom att kalla sig Humanisterna. Nu kan man ju välja att ge detta ord olika innebörd. Klassiskt så har humanism betytt medmänsklighet och medkänsla. Och att värna om människans värde. I denna betydelse ser jag ingen omedelbar koppling mellan ateism och humanism. Snarare tvärtom. Det tycks snarare handla om retorik i ordets sämsta bemärkelse.

 

Läs gärna denna betraktelse av Roy Hattersley (ateist och parlamentsledamot): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/12/religion.uk. Den handlar om verklig humanism och ateism.

 

 

Beträffande min förmenta okunskap i biologi kan jag nämna att jag haft många debatter med professor Dan Larhammar i Uppsala (både brevledes, öga mot öga och offentligt). Larhammar betraktas av många som en svensk motsvarighet till Richard Dawkins. Han är professor i molekylär cellbiologi men är också väl insatt i evolutionsteorin (som ju kan studeras på många plan, bl a utifrån cellbiologi). Vid ett tillfälle, jag tror det var när vi en gång för många år sedan fikade på hans tjänsterum på Biomedicinskt Centrum och diskuterade evolutionen. Jag bad då honom om ett omdöme när det gällde min förståelse av evolutionen. Jag gjorde en muntlig sammanfattning av hur jag uppfattade att evolutionen fungerade och Larhammar sade att jag hade gett en helt korrekt bild av evolutionens mekanismer. Så jag har s a s ett diplom på att jag har korrekta kunskaper inom detta område, utfärdat av evolutionens notarius publicus (givetvis handlar det om principiella kunskaper -- jag är ju inte professionell inom området). Ateister anklagar ofta den som har kritiska synpunkter på evolutionsteorin för djupt (bottenlöst) okunniga

 

Som om ett hundraprocentigt accepterande av evolutionsteorin är ekvivalent med djupa kunskaper i biologi. Det här är ju lite på samma nivå som när Dawkins skriver (ungefär, jag tar ur minnet), "När man träffar någon som tvivlar på evolutionen är det alltid någon som antingen är okunnig, ointelligent eller fanatisk". Jag vill minnas att han en gång lade till, "ja till och med ond" eller något liknande.

 

NN drar också slutsatsen, utifrån min artikel att jag inte hade någon insyn i kristendomen som ung. Det stämmer inte. Jag hade höga betyg i kristendomskunskap på realskolan och fick t o m premium i ämnet vid realexamen. Jag var intresserad men kom tidigt fram till att jag inte kunde tro på någon religion (som jag beskriver i artikeln). Så okunnig var jag inte.

 

NN säger sig aldrig ha hört argumentet att vetenskapen motbevisat Guds existens. Det kan så vara. NN verkar f ö ha en mer genomtänkt och hållbar ateism än många ateister jag träffat. Jag reste i 40 år land och rike runt och höll föredrag om tro och vetande, skapelse/evolution, intelligent design, kristen tro etc. På skolor, i kyrkor och församlingar, på bibliotek, universitet, konferenser etc. Och har också deltagit i ett flertal offentliga debatter i dessa ämnen. Påståendet att vetenskapen bevisat att Gud inte finns har jag mött många, många gånger. I och för sig är det ett påstående som man egentligen bör negligera, eftersom det är så korkat och okunnigt. Och den ateist som hävdar något sådant, försätter sig själv i en svag position. Så jag håller med NN om att det är oseriöst. Men icke desto mindre är det inte helt ovanligt. Och speciellt var det vanligt vid den tiden jag beskriver i min livsberättelse (1960-talet).

 

 

Intressant att han gör distinktionen mellan frånvaro av tro och att aktivt påstå att Gud inte finns. Detta är för troende judar en väldigt viktig distinktion.

 

Han citerar ett långt stycke som börjar, "Det fina med sanningen..." och tycker stycket utgör ett märkligt resonemang och han håller inte med om en enda mening. Han tar där två motexempel som anses bevisa hur märkligt mitt resonemang är. Jag ser hans invändningar som helt irrelevanta och för mig visar det dels att han inte förstår mitt resonemang dels hur meningslösa sådana här diskussioner är. Jag tror att NN och jag tycker olika om nästan allting. Antagligen har vi t o m helt olika syn på hur ordet "och" skall tolkas.

 

Han menar att naturen "skapar" vackra solnedgångar. Alltså kan materialistiska processer skapa. Solnedgångar i sig är ett resultat av naturliga processer; jordens rörelse runt solen och runt sin egen axel, ljusets egenskaper, ljusbrytning i atmosfären etc. Skönhetsupplevelsen uppstår i oss. I vårt inre. En dator kan också registrera en solnedgång genom att mäta våglängder etc. men jag betvivlar att den får en bländande skönhetsupplevelse i sina kretsar. Lika lite som jag tror att transistorerna i min iPhone njuter när jag lyssnar på musik i den. Detta är ett intressant ämne som egentligen förtjänar en lång, lång kommentar. Ja t o m en hel bok. Men i väntan på döden tänker jag inte ödsla min tid med sådana här diskussioner, hur intressant detta ämne än må vara.

 

Hans kommentarer om moral efter nästa citat anser jag också vara felaktigt och representerar inte det jag försöker beskriva. Nu är det givetvis så att i en sådan här livsberättelse kan man inte gå till botten med allting. Jag har flera tusen sidor på min hemsida och på olika ställen diskuterar jag sådana här frågor mer i detalj. Man får helt enkelt botanisera på sidan. Jag har väl fungerande sökmöjligheter där. Vissa av min kritiska läsare tycks mena att jag efter varje mening i varje artikel, inom en parentes, skall har hela hemsidan samlad (då finns ju allt med i varje mening -- problemet blir att texten blir en aning svårläst.

 

NNs tro att människovärde och liknande lätt kan härledas ur olika filosofiska principer är tomma ord i min mening. Analyserar man alla sådana förmenta härledningar finner man att det alltid finns mänskligt formulerade principer i botten. Dvs de blir godtyckliga. Det är sant att evolutionen inte har något mål (i strikt, teleologisk mening), men den verkar för att optimera chansen för vårt dna att överleva (vilket också innebär att destruera gener som hotar artens framtid). Detta är något som Richard Dawkins har påpekat många gånger. Titeln på en av hans böcker är ju just "Den själviska genen". När jag skriver "mål" så menar jag i denna mening. Jag kunde givetvis ha uttryckt mig försiktigare men å andra sidan kunde NN ha läst texten med större välvilja. Det är uppenbart att han inte är intresserad av vad jag försöker säga, utan enbart vill hitta fel i texten.

 

Att Hitler hjälpte evolutionen på traven är inte alls orimligt att påstå. Jag tänker då inte på Förintelsen utan på T4-programmet, dvs avlivandet av förståndshandikappade, långtidssjuka etc. (jag talar då inte om judar utom om ariska tyskar). Jag förklarar klart och tydligt i artikeln att det inte handlar om Förintelsen utan om det tyska dödshjälpsprogrammet (kallat T4-programmet). Just detta att beskylla motsidan för okunnighet är så tyyypiskt ateister. Alla som inte tycker som de är monumentalt okunniga (och kanske också dumma i huvudet eller fanatiska eller rent av onda -- för att citera Dawkins).

 

Hitlers politiska system, nationalsocialismen, kan man klassificera som en skoningslös socialdarwinism. Bland nazisterna pratades mycket om den starkares överlevnad och svaghet föraktades. Hela den nazistiska kulturen cirkulerade kring detta. Det är bara att titta på den av nazisterna godkända konsten.

 

 

NN kritiserar mig också för att jag tror att evolutionen handlar om den starkastes överlevnad medan den i själva verket handlar om den bäst anpassades överlevnad (survival of the fittest). Jag skriver i artikeln "den starkares överlevnad" inom citationstecken. Det är inte jag som påstår detta utan jag förmedlar ungefär hur argumenteringen gick när jag var elev på gymnasiet (dvs under den tid jag beskriver). Det var just denna formulering som då var den förhärskande och som jag växte upp med. Detta är ju min livsberättelse och jag försöker återskapa resonemangen som de gick då. Jag vet mycket väl att detta är ett felaktigt uttryck och tar på flera ställen i mina artiklar om evolutionen upp just detta och påpekar att det i själva verket handlar om den bäst anpassades överlevnad. Min livsberättelse är emellertid inte en teknisk artikel om evolutionsteorin utan just en livsberättelse. Dessutom, eftersom jag talar om Hitler, så finns en viss relevans i att använda just "den starkares överlevnad". Det var precis så Hitler såg på evolutionen (och ibland är dessutom den starkaste den bäst anpassade -- så ibland stämmer det). Hitler insåg f ö att kristendom och evolution var oförenliga. I boken "Hitlers Bordssamtal 1941-1944" (redigerad av Martin Bormann, Hitlers privatsekreterare och ställföreträdare, säger Hitler vid ett tillfälle:

 

Om vi inte respekterade naturens lagar och utövade den starkares rätt, skulle en vacker dag de vilda djuren åter börja äta upp oss. ...Det är kampen som får eliten att ständigt förnyas. Urvalets lagar gör denna oupphörliga kamp berättigad genom att se till att de bäst anpassade får överleva. Kristendomen är ett uppror mot naturlagarna, en protest mot naturen.

 

 

 

Här talar Hitler dels om "den starkares rätt" dels om ""att de bäst anpassade får överleva". Han visar således att han förstått hur evolutionen fungerar samtidigt som han också kopplar detta till den starkares rätt. Dessutom uppvisar Hitler en förvånansvärd insikt i citatet. Kristendomen är nämligen ett uppror mot den fallna Skapelsen, precis som Hitler säger.

 

Bormanns sammanställning har på senare tid blivit ifrågasatt som historisk källa och man menar att denne redigerade sammanställningen för att stärka sin egen ställning inom partihierarkin. Det kan så vara fallet men torde vara irrelevant för ovanstående citat. Detta citat har knappast relevans i en intern maktkamp inom nazistpartiet och det finns ingen anledning varför Bormann skulle redigerat detta citat. Dessutom stämmer det Hitler säger här väldigt väl med vad hans sista personliga sekreterare Traudl Junge (som levde tillsammans med Hitler i bunkern ända fram till att denne sköt sig) skriver om dessa bordssamtal i sina memoarer "Until the Final Hour". Hitler åt middag med sin närmaste stab (adjutanter, sekreterare, familjen Goebbels etc. och ibland Eva Braun) nästan varje dag och enligt Junge bestod konversationen ofta av att någon ställde en fråga till Hitler. Denne höll då ett långt föredrag där han gav sin syn på ämnet. Även Junge har i sina memoarer med citat från dessa bordssamtal. Dessa visar bl a på hans syn på kristendomen, som han starkt ogillade pga dess påstådda mesighet. Islam var han dock väldigt förtjust i. Albert Speer, Hitlers rustningsminister, citerar t ex i sina memoarer Inside the Third Reich (Tredje Riket inifrån) Hitlers uttalanden om islam:

 

Den muhammedanska religionen skulle ha passat oss mycket bättre än kristendomen [Hitler menar här att islam skulle passat det ariska temperamentet mycket bättre än den ynkliga kristendomen]. Varför blev det i stället kristendomen [som vann] med sin ödmjukhet och slapphet [här talar Hitler utifrån total okunskap om vad sann kristendom innebär — kanske bedömde han kristendomen från samtal han haft med liberalteologiska präster]?

 

 

Om Europa blivit islamiserat, hade Tyskland lett detta islamska imperium, byggt på en religion som trodde på att sprida tron med svärdet och att underkuva alla nationer till denna tro [detta är precis vad islam arbetar på och var givetvis det som Hitler uppskattade med islam].

 

 

NNs upprepade påståenden om min monumentala okunnighet när det gäller biolog påminner mig lite om när man på gymnasiet i Kristianstad inför förra eller förrförra valet hade ett provval. Först berättade företrädare för de olika partierna för eleverna om vad deras partier stod för och sedan fick eleverna rösta. SD fick 60% vill jag minnas (eller något åt det hållet i alla fall). Jag läste om detta i Kristianstadsbladet och när företrädaren för MP fick frågan hur det kunde gå så här, blev svaret ungefär, "Vi fick tydligen inte fram vårt budskap. Vi måste bli bättre och mer pedagogiska när det gäller att förmedla vårt program". Det han säger är således, hade vi bara fått fram vårt program till eleverna hade i stort sett alla röstat på oss. Men tänk om MP fick fram sitt program. De kanske t o m lyckades alltför väl, men åhörarna förkastade deras program, eftersom de tyckte det var useldåligt. De höll inte med helt enkelt. Det är intressant att notera att företrädaren för MP inte kunde tänka sig att eleverna tyckte deras program var dåligt utan det handlade bara om dålig kommunikation. Så typiskt för vår tid, där allt handlar om processen och nästan ingenting om innehållet (det är viktigare att ett företag har rätt genussyn än att företaget går med vinst). I likhet med NN så tycks företrädaren för MP vara så övertygad om att han har rätt i sak, att han inte ens kan tänka tanken att en ärlig, kunnig person skulle kunna förkasta hans enastående partiprogram som, enligt vad han själv tror, skulle lösa alla mänsklighetens problem i ett enda nafs.

 

 

Apropå evolution och nazism: Den franske matematikern och anti-darwinisten David Berlinski säger i den evolutionskritiska filmen Expelled, "Evolutionsteorin var kanske inte ett tillräckligt villkor för nazismen, men den var utan tvekan ett nödvändigt villkor." Det finns till och med framstående evolutionister som erkänner det Berlinski säger ovan. En av 1900-talets mest kända evolutionsbiologer, Stephen Jay Gould, skriver t ex i boken Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Belknap — Harvard Press, 1977):

 

 

Biologiska argument för rasism kan ha varit vanliga före 1850 [Darwins första bok publicerades 1859], men de ökade med tiopotenser efter att evolutionsteorin blev accepterad (sid 127-128).

 

 

 

NN tar också, i likhet med många ateister, upp den filosofiska principen Occams rakkniv. Den har sin tillämpning inom vetenskapen i vissa fall. Har vi t ex flera teorier som kan förklara samma sak lika bra, t ex Newtons och Einsteins gravitationsteorier (när det gäller vanliga tillämpningar av gravitation här på jorden), kan man lika gärna välja den enklaste eller mest pedagogiska eller vackraste teorin. Därför läser man inte allmän relativitetsteori (Einsteins gravitationsteori) på gymnasiet (eleverna har inga som helst möjligheter att förstå den matematik som ligger bakom). Det räcker med Newton. Den senare teorin kan tillräckligt väl förklara fenomenet gravitation tillämpat i alla vardagliga och tekniska sammanhang.

 

Problemet är att vetenskapliga teorier inte handlar om absoluta sanningar (eftersom sådana är oåtkomliga med den vetenskapliga metoden). Att hävda att en vetenskaplig teori är sann (i någon absolut mening) är enligt min mening missvisande, ja helt felaktigt. Mer korrekt är att säga att vetenskapliga teorier utgör användbara modeller av verkligheten. Ordet användbar är mer relevant är ordet sann i detta sammanhang. Men när det gäller verkligheten, och om vi diskuterar absoluta sanningar, t ex Guds existens och natur (inom kristendomen utgör Guds existens en absolut sanning, alltså måste ateisten negera denna absoluta sanning), så blir Occams rakkniv helt värdelös. Helt ointressant! Verkligheten bryr sig inte om människopåhittade tankeekonomiska principer. Det finns ingenting som säger att den enklaste (enligt mänsklig bedömning) förklaringen alltid är lika med den absolut sanna förklaringen. Inga observationer stöder att så skulle vara fallet. Och dessutom, vad menar vi med den enklaste förklaringen? Det torde vara svårt att hitta sätt att kvantitativt bedöma vilken teori, av flera, som är enklast (det finns långa avhandlingar som försöker formulera sätt att ange komplexitet och dess motsats enkelhet kvantitativt, utan att lyckas något vidare). Och dessutom, det som jordiska människor tycker är enklast kanske inte är det som utomjordingar eller Gud tycker är enklast.

 

 

NN skriver i samband med min diskussion om ondska: "Meningen med livet är att leva och låta leva. Ondskan förklaras av evolutionen. Hur Krister vet att Bibelns svar är objektivt sanna förklarar han inte." Ja tänk om det vore så enkelt. För det första kan inte ateismen ge någon absolut mening med tillvaron. Eller någon moral. Den kan bara konstatera hur det är., eftersom det är exakt detta som vetenskapen handlar om. Moral handlar t ex om hur det bör vara och är kan aldrig bli bör genom logiska operationer. Mening och moral handlar om att koppla det som är till något utanför det som är. Annars blir det bara en lek med ord. Den kristna moralen är kopplad till något som är större än människan och utgör en "guldmyntfot" eller "internationell meterprototyp", mot vilken vi kan kalibrera vår egen moral. "Att leva och låta leva" kanske låter vist och humant men är bara munväder, eftersom det kan tolkas på så många olika sätt. Påståendet att ondskan förklaras av evolutionen är bara ett tomt påstående. Vad materialisten gör är att han definierar ondska så att påståendet stämmer. Dvs ett cirkelbevis. Att rovdjur plågar och dödar bytesdjur har inget med moral eller ont och gott att göra. Djur är inte moraliska varelser utan amoraliska varelser, dvs saknar moral. Ont och gott handlar om något mycket större och mer oroväckande än vad som inryms i vetenskapliga teorier. Ondskan är inte bara frånvaron av godhet utan någonting i sig. En mörk kraft eller makt i tillvaron. Att svenskar har en sådan naiv syn på ondska beror antagligen på att vi varit förskonade från krig i århundraden och därför inte har fått skåda in i ondskans nakna ansikte under vår livstid. Hitler ansåg f ö att det han gjorde var gott (han ville skapa en bättre värld för det tyska folket). NN klagar också på att jag inte förklarar Bibelns svar på dessa frågor. Det gör jag. Mycket, mycket ingående. Jag har ett flertal artiklar där jag diskuterar ont och gott ur olika perspektiv, men i min livsberättelse redogör jag övergripande för hur jag resonerade och vad som ledde mig fram till att bli kristen. Självklart kan jag inte ge alla detaljer i varje artikel (som jag förklarat ovan).

 

Här hittar du två artiklar i vilka jag diskuterar ondskan: https://gluefox.com/kontr/ondska.shtm

 och här: https://gluefox.com/kontr/ondsaml.shtm

 

 

Observera, att i min egen livsberättelse så försöker jag återspegla hur jag argumenterade då (t ex när jag var 12 år gammal och beslöt mig för att bli ateist). Och hur argumenten gick fram och tillbaka på den tiden. En stor del av NNs kritik handlar således hur jag tänkte för nästan 70 år sedan. Detta avspeglar givetvis långt ifrån hur jag tänker idag. Så på sätt och vis kan man säga att NNs kritik av min livsberättelse knappast utgör någon giltig kritik av kristendomen eller hur jag tänker idag. Det är därför jag valde att inte kommentera NNs argument i hans livsberättelse (annat än väldigt generellt).

 

Kanske kan det tyckas att jag skjuter bredvid målet när jag så ingående diskuterar Hitlers syn på evolution etc. Jag tycker inte det. Eftersom NN beskyller mig för okunskap och ifrågasätter relevansen i mitt resonemang

 

 

Ja, det var mina spontana kommentarer. Nu orkar jag inte mer. Och har därför inget mer att säga, utan kommer att tiga för evigt i detta sammanhang. Adjö!

 

 

Med vänlig hälsning

 

Krister Renard

 

 

 

 

======================================

======================================

 

 

 

 

ENGINEERING, PHENOMENOLOGY, ANTHROPOSOPHY OR ATHEISM

E-mail conversation initiated by N.N. (XXXX), and then between Valdemar Setzer (YYYY) and John Waterworth (ZZZZ).

 

 

The encoding of the names into YYYY and ZZZZ was done before Setzer and Waterworth gave me the permission of disclosing their names. N.N. stands for a colleague who wished to remain anonymous.

 

 

=====================================

 

From: XXXX

To: Kristo Ivanov <kivanov@informatik.umu.se>

Subject: Mandelbrot-tal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set)

Date-Sent: 30 July 2022 at 10:07:36 +0200 [GMT+2=Swedish summer time]

 

God morgon Kristo!

 

Inte för att jag delar slutsatserna av denna video men visst är det fascinerande.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taKaFUNJ6Ec

 

 

[Translated into English:]

 

God morning, Kristo!

 

Not because I share the conclusions of this video but it is certainly fascinating.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taKaFUNJ6Ec

 

 

[my note: If you wish to know more about Jason Lisle, to begin with:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle

https://answersingenesis.org/bios/jason-lisle/ ]

 

 

 

 

 

=============================================

 

 

 

From YYYY

To: Kristo Ivanov <kivanov@informatik.umu.se>

Subject: Re: Science and the Bible. Re: Mandelbrot-tal (fwd)

Date-Sent: 30 July 2022 at 16:20:40 -0400

 

Hi, Kristo,

 

Please forward this e-mail to your friends.

 

Thank you VERY VERY much of the link to Jason Lisle's video. It is a fantastic demonstration of the Mandelbrot Set. Also his thoughts about the laws of mathematics and of physics are very interesting. I have some observations:

 

1. He does not recognize that the Geneses is a collection of images, symbols and not of physical realities. This is absolutely clear, because at Gen. 1:15-16 the Elohim (a plural in Hebrew!) "created" the Sun and the Moon in the 4th day. So the creation images do not correspond directly to the physical world.

 

2. The images in the Geneses and in all myths and many of the Grimms' fairy tales can only be explained from a spiritual point of view.

 

3. Unfortunately, not from his point of view. He blames God for many things, such as the creation of the physical world and of mathematics, but he does not explain how God did it. In particular, God is certainly a non-physical being. How can something non-physical have access to the physical world? (I have a theory about this, but it applies to already existing physical matter.)

 

4. He talks about concepts. Correct: mathematics deals with pure concepts; 2 is a symbolic representation of the concept of the numeral two, but is not the concept, see my bilingual essay https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conceito-cerebro.pdf

 

But he is not able to have a concept of God. God has become (for everybody) an abstraction.

 

5. Kristo, in the references you sent me, there is a mention of atheists. I think this word does not make sense. According to American Heritage, "Atheist: One who denies the existence of God". So please ask your atheist friends what they are precisely denying. They would have to describe their concept of God. But they deny his/her existence, how would they be able to have a concept of something they say does not exist? If I say "I deny that I can hold my breath for 10 minutes", everybody understands what I mean, because they know what breathing is, what holding the breath means, what 10 minutes are. But a so-called atheist cannot explain what  God means, much less what "the existence of God" means.

 

6. The correct word is not atheism, but materialism or physicalism: admitting that there are only physical matter and energy in the universe, and in particular in the human being. A person who admits the existence of non-physical "substances" or beings I will call a spiritualist.

 

7. Lisle calls materialists "secular". American Heritage: "Secular: 1. Of or pertaining to the temporal rather than the spiritual. 2. Not specifically pertaining to religion or to a religious body." Curious use of

the word "temporal"; everybody pertains to the time realm. I don't pertain to any religion, but I don't consider myself being "secular" or, better, a materialist.

 

8. Lisle says that God (be he/r whatever he/r is) is "omnipresent". What

does he mean by "present"? In any conception of God, s/he is not a physical being. Then how can s/he be present in the physical world? He also says that God is sovereign, certainly meaning that God is omnipotent. If God is sovereign or omnipotent, he has the ultimate power over everything. In this case, humans cannot have free will. I bet Lisle admits the existence of free will in humans.

 

8. Lisle has very interesting discussions of math being pre-existing or being invented. But he says that God "thinks", and God has "thought" mathematics. First of all, he didn't describe what our thinking is, and if God thinks in our way or not, if her/his thoughts are the same as ours. Especially, our languages are connected to the Earth; in the spiritual world our languages do not exist. BTW, the spiritual world is obviously totally different than our physical world -- matter does not exist there! One may consider that concepts are in the spiritual world, and we are able to reach them with our thinking. Lisle says that they are in our mind. Unfortunately for him, a human's mind is a personal, individual member of a person's non-physical constitution. If concepts are in individual minds, they cannot be universal -- as they are. (Materialists would say that the mind is the brain, and concepts are stored in the brain, which is nonsense, as I explain in the essay cited on item 4 above.) https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/diffs-Luke-Matthew.pdf

 

(The Catholic Church explains the difference between the two genealogies as one being Joseph's and the other Mary's, which is absolutely ridiculous -- at that time nobody cared for feminine genealogies -- and all the names are masculine...)

 

10. This is already too long. Just to put an end to it, his mentioning of God is not conceptual, it relies on belief. It happens that the modern human should not be satisfied with beliefs, but should look for explanations. Lisle does not explain whatever he says about God. It happens that there are already very good explanations about the spirit in humans, and in the universe.

 

Kristo, you keep mentioning my review of Dawkin's The God Delusion. Please refer also to other of my papers on spirituality, from my web site:

 

8.1 Paper Is there just matter or also spirit in the universe?, published in the Southern Cross Review electronic journal, No. 55, Sept./Oct. 2007. https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/spiritualist.html

 

8.2 Paper Science, religion and spirituality. This paper complements the previous one and should be read before the latter. https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/science-religion-spirituality.html

 

8.3 Paper Consequences of materialism

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conseqs-of-materialism.html

 

8.4 Paper An Anthroposophical introduction to the human organization, in 3 parts, written in 2000, translated into English in 2006.

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/const1-eng.htm

 

8.5 Paper Soul dispositions and attitudes recommended by Rudolf Steiner in his book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment. Presents 173 soul dispositions and attitudes from that book. A translation of the paper in Portuguese, done by Henrique Hermont. https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/Setzer-Know-Higher-Worlds.pdf. and also some from section 7 Philosophy, science and society

 

Greetings to all,

YYYY

 

 

 

=========================================

 

 

July 31, 2022 15:09;  (per WhatsApp)

From  ZZZZ

To Kristo (who had forwarded the above to him)

 

 

 

I think your correspondent [YYYY] is mistaken. Atheists don't believe in God. He says "So please ask your atheist friends what they are precisely denying. They would have to describe their concept of God." Why would they? There are clearly many ways of describing God, but they share the idea of a supernatural being. An atheist can decline to believe in any of them. He also says:  "how would they be able to have a concept of something they say does not exist?" Quite easily. I have a concept of the moon being made of green cheese, but such a moon doesn't exist. Much of fiction is about concepts of things that don't exist.

 

 

 

 

====================================

 

 

 

July 31, 2022; 15:15

From Kristo to ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

Fine, ZZZZ

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle

https://answersingenesis.org/bios/jason-lisle/

 

but now you have a golden and perhaps unique opportunity to discuss  this (and other related) questions with somebody, YYYY, who is passionately well-read and disposed for logical discussions. I myself would be delighted to follow your thoughts. You already got his name and mailaddress, and can refer to me.

 

 

Kristo

 

 

 

 

===================================

 

 

 

 

2022-08-01, at 10:36

> From [atheist?] ZZZZ to [spiritualist?] YYYY

 

Hi YYYY,

 

Sorry, my previous mail escaped from my fingers before I had completed it!

In response to your comments (and thanks for sending them):

 

 

 

>

> [09:21, 31/07/2022] Kristo:

 

 

 

>>  I think your correspondent is mistaken.

>> Atheists don't believe in God.

>

> Great. If you consider yourself an atheist, could you please tell me in

> what you precisely don't believe? I don't understand the word God.

> (It's not just your problem. People who declare that they believe in >

> God cannot explain in what they are believing.)

 

 

I agree that people who believe in God often cannot explain the concept clearly, but they are not without some version of the story they believe to be factual. And they do experience what they call belief. I believe them. I don’t experience that. The fact that they can’t explain what God precisely isn’t a reason for believing in it/him/her/them, and yet they do have this belief, or faith - for this kind of belief is an expression of faith. I don’t have that kind of belief, or faith, so… that’s enough to say I don’t believe in God. That nobody can say what God means exactly is not a reason to believe, but it is one reason not to believe, surely?

 

 

 

> What do you mean by "a supernatural being?". One that has no >

> Physical body? Maybe you only believe in physical bodies; but in this case what is something non-physical for you?.

 

 

Yes, I mean one that has no physical body. And supernatural powers – powers that are not present in natural bodies, which are at least partly physical. Consciousness is something that is non-physical, and that natural bodies can have.

 

 

 

> > An atheist can decline to believe in any of them.

>

> Let's go deeper and be more precise. Do you believe that the human

> being has some supernatural components, or is it a purely physical

> entity made  of physical matter and energy?

 

 

As you will see from my last comment, I don’t think that humans have

supernatural components - we are completely natural - nor do I think that we are purely physical.

 

 

 

> Atheism refers only to a mysterious God, not about humans and living

> beings. When you say that you don't believe in a supernatural being,

>  you are saying nothing about the existence of supernatural members

> of human beings. You see that 'atheism' is very limited.

 

 

Not really. I see no reason to think that human beings have “supernatural members” - whatever you mean by that (it might mean that some people are supernatural, or that parts of some people, or all people, are supernatural but neither of these is the case in my view).

 

 

 

>He also says:  "how would they be able to have a concept of

>> something they say does not exist?" Quite easily. I have a concept

>> of the moon being made of green cheese, but such a moon doesn't

>> exist. Much of fiction is about concepts of things that don't exist.

 

> ZZZZ, the problem is that when you say that you have the concept

> that the Moon is made of green cheese, I can understand precisely

> what you mean, because I understand precisely what Moon and

> green cheese are. I can agree or disagree with you. My point is that

> when you use the word God, I have no clue of what you are talking

> about.

 

 

 

“No clue” seems like an exaggeration. There are numerous descriptions of God and gods, for example the fable about a heavenly father, whose son came to Earth and was killed, and a Holy Ghost. It’s taught in Christian schools. It’s a concept that children can understand, just as they understand fairly stories, or Harry Potter. I was taught the Christian stories as a child, but to me it is fiction. I don’t believe that these stories are factual.

 

 

 

>  I think the word "atheist" it is not understandable.

 

 

Is the word “Christian” understandable?>

 

 

 

Best wishes,

ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

==============================================

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-02, 08:21 -0400 "Valdemar W. Setzer" <setzerv@gmail.com> wrote:

 

 

 

Hi, John, 

 

 

Thanks for the prompt response.

 

 

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 4:36 AM John Waterworth

> <jwworth@informatik.umu.se> wrote:

>

> Hi Val,

>

> Sorry, my previous mail escaped from my fingers before I had completed it!

>

>

 

 

It happens with me as well. I use gmail, and for some moments it always

asks if the e-mail should or not be sent, so there is a chance of

avoiding it.  

 

 

> In response to your comments (and thanks for sending them):

>

> I agree that people who believe in God often cannot explain the concept

> clearly, but they are not without some version of the story they believe

> to be factual. And they do experience what they call belief. I believe

> them. I don’t experience that.

>

 

 

 

Their experience is a feeling. Not a conceptual explanation. 

 

 

> The fact that they can’t explain what God precisely isn’t  a reason

> for believing in it/him/her/them, and yet they do have this belief, or

> faith - for this kind of belief is an expression of faith.

 

 

 

 

I insist: I said that atheists cannot explain what they do not believe.

And I said that if they can't explain what they don't believe, I cannot

understand what they are talking about.  Faiths are not explainable. I

want to understand.

 

 

 

>  I don’t have that kind of belief, or faith, so… that’s enough to

> say I don’t believe in God. That nobody can say what God means exactly

> is not a reason to believe, but it is one reason not to believe, surely?

 

 

 

 

I continue not understanding what you don't believe. But wait (not in

this e-mail, though) until I give a better name for your not believing --

something that can be understandable. 

 

>> What do you mean by "a supernatural being?". One that has no physical

>> body? Maybe you only believe in physical bodies; but in this case what

>> is something non-physical for you?.

>

> Yes, I mean one that has no physical body. And supernatural powers -

> powers that are not present in natural bodies, which are at least partly

> physical. Consciousness is something that is non-physical, and that

> natural bodies can have.

 

 

 

 

Wow, isn't this a contradiction?  If consciousness is something

non-physical it exists in a non-physical realm or world. So you admit

that there are "things" or "phenomena" which are not physical This is

great!

 

 

But if there is such a realm, why "beings" cannot exist in that realm?

Now, we have consciousness, correct? In this case, isn't our

consciousness of the same "nature" as what you mentioned as a

non-physical consciousness? Or the latter has nothing in common with our

consciousness? In this case, it should not be called consciousness, don't

you think so?

 

 

> > An atheist can decline to believe in any of them.

>

> Let's go deeper and be more precise. Do you believe that the human being

> has some supernatural components, or is it a purely physical entity made

> of physical matter and energy?

 

> As you will see from my last comment, I don’t think that humans have

> supernatural components - we are completely natural - nor do I think that

> we are purely physical.

 

 

 

 

If we are purely physical, our consciousness has nothing to do with what

you called consciousness, correct? 

 

 

>> Atheism refers only to a mysterious God, not about humans and living

>> beings. When you say that you don't believe in a supernatural being, you

>> are saying nothing about the existence of supernatural members of human

>> beings. You see that 'atheism' is very limited.

 

> Not really. I see no reason to think that human beings have

> “supernatural members” - whatever you mean by that (it might mean

> that some people are supernatural, or that parts of some people, or all

> people, are supernatural - but neither of these is the case in my view).

 

 

 

 

A phenomenon that is real but cannot be explained in scientific terms,

can be called "supernatural", correct? Now I will mention 3 of these kind

of phenomena: your thinking, your feellings and your willing. Science has

absolutely no explanation what they are and how they are produced. But I

am sure you will agree that you think, have sensations and feelings (both

are manifestations of "to feel"). You may say that science does not know

what they are, but will know in the future. But I may make the hypothesis

that this will never occur with the scientific paradigm of today. In the

same way that with the present paradigm science will never know how was

the origin of matter and energy in the universe, or what the boundaries

of the universe are. 

 

 

I'll give an example. Suppose you eat an apple. You feel the taste of it.

This is a sensation. But nobody can have the sensation you are having.

Now either you like the taste or you don't like it (the apple may not be

ripe). These are feelings. Nobody can have your feelings when you are

eating the apple. Sensations and feelings ar absolutely individual and

subjective. Thus, they themselves will never be the object of physical

science, which is universal and objective. Therefore, science is

non-human, it cannot deal with essential humane phenomena.

 

 

John, you cannot prove that you are having some thoughts, that you are

feeling something and that you are having willing impulses. These

phenomena are occult! So you are an occultist, what about this?

 

 

> “No clue” seems like an exaggeration. There are numerous descriptions

> of God and gods, for example the fable about a heavenly father, whose son

> came to Earth and was killed, and a Holy Ghost.

>

 

 

 

Fables are not conceptual descriptions directed to understanding.

(Remember my objection to your not believing in God or gods: I wanted to

understand what you don't believe.) Now I'll advance something: certainly

for you, the Genesis, myths and fairy tales are just fables, histories

that were invented by some people. Not for me: they are images of real

phenomena, but not physical (as what you called 'consciousness'!). In

ancient times people had the possibility of observing these phenomena,

but not with their physical senses. But at that time they didn't have our

ability of formulating concepts, that's why they expressed those

non-physical realities in images, symbols. Humanity lost the non-physical

senses that permitted that observation. This evolution was a necessity

that I can explain. 

 

 

As for the Christ, in the beginning of Christianity his adepts had an

understanding of what that being was. This was lost -- just observe the

atrocities that were perpetrated in his name, absolutely against his

teachings and attitudes! Even today, most of Christian churches don't

follow his teachings and don't understand what the Christ really was.

Note that the image "son of God" makes no physical sense: God should be a

non-physical entity, without beard and breasts, so how could he had a

son? You see, this is also an image -- that has to be interpreted in

non-physical concepts.

 

 

> It’s taught in Christian schools. It’s a concept that children can

> understand,

>

 

 

 

No, Sir, small children have no possibility of having a conceptual

understanding. They "understand" with their feelings. 

 

 

> just as they understand fairly stories, or Harry Potter.

>

 

 

 

Children absorb the images of fairy tales; most of them have extremely

deep, real significances; those images produce a positive effect on

children. This is obviously not the case with Andersen's fairy tales,

that were invented by him and not stemmed from old popular traditions as

the Grimms' tales. Harry Potter is horrible. 

 

 

> I was taught the Christian storyies as a child, but to me it is fiction.

> I don’t believe that these stories are factual.

 

 

 

 

That's because you are regarding them in a physical way.  

 

 

 

>>   I think the word "atheist" it is not understandable.

 

> Is the word “Christian” understandable?

 

 

 

 

This depends on the understanding of the Christ being and his mission.

We are now in the position of having a good understanding of him and his

mission. 

 

 

BTW, if somebody exercises unselfish love, I call her/him "Christian",

independent on what religion s/he professes. In this interpretation,

being Christian is understandable. I may digress on this if you wish,

using the Bible and the Gospels. 

 

 

All the best, Val. 

 

 

 

 

 

============================================

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-02, 15:13 +0200 ZZZZ wrote

 

Hi YYYY

 

 

Thanks for your response to my latest, and sorry for the typos in there. But I think it was still understandable.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>> I agree that people who believe in God often cannot explain the concept

>> clearly, but they are not without some version of the story they believe

>> to be factual. And they do experience what they call belief. I believe

>> them. I don’t experience that.

>

>

> Their experience is a feeling. Not a conceptual explanation.

>

>

>

A story is a conceptual explanation, though it may not be a detailed or

coherent one. Their feelings are anchored - and explained - in that

story. All conceptual explanations are ultimately grounded in feelings, or

they have no meaning.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 

>

>> The fact that they can’t explain what God precisely isn’t  a reason

>> for believing in it/him/her/them, and yet they do have this belief, or

>> faith - for this kind of belief is an expression of faith.

>

>

> I insist: I said that atheists cannot explain what they do not believe.

> And I said that if they can't explain what they don't believe, I cannot

> understand what they are talking about.  Faiths are not explainable. I

> want to understand.

>

>

>

The story of faiths are explainable - are explanations, in fact. At the

end of your mail your said "We are now in the position of having a good

understanding of him and his mission.”. I suppose you mean the

Christian story, which to me is only understandable up to a point - it is

quite incoherent, and needs faith, and associated feeling, to be

believable. I don’t believe it, although I don’t call myself an

atheist. There may be God stories that I find believable, but I haven’t

heard them. So, as of now, I don’t believe in God because I don’t

believe any God stories that I have heard.

>

>

>

>>  I don’t have that kind of belief, or faith, so… that’s enough to

>> say I don’t believe in God. That nobody can say what God means exactly

>> is not a reason to believe, but it is one reason not to believe, surely?

>

>

> I continue not understanding what you don't believe.

>

>

I don’t believe any God stories that I have heard.

 

>

>

>> What do you mean by "a supernatural being?". One that has no physical

>> body? Maybe you only believe in physical bodies; but in this case what

>> is something non-physical for you?.

>>

>> Yes, I mean one that has no physical body. And supernatural powers -

>> powers that are not present in natural bodies, which are at least partly

>> physical. Consciousness is something that is non-physical, and that

>> natural bodies can have.

>

>

> Wow, isn't this a contradiction?  If consciousness is something

> non-physical it exists in a non-physical realm or world. So you admit

> that there are "things" or "phenomena" which are not physical This is

> great!

>

> 

No, it’s not a contradiction. Natural living bodies have non-physical

aspects - consciousness, experiences. They do have physical bodies –

 so they get ill and die. They do not have supernatural powers –

 Coming back from the dead, being invisible, instant travel over long distances,

etc… Natural non-physical aspects are part of the world we live in -

which is both physical and non-physical. But I see no reason to believe

there are wholly “non-physical realms or worlds”, like Heaven, or the

Spirit World.

>

>

>

> But if there is such a realm, why "beings" cannot exist in that realm?

>

> 

There isn’t such a realm, as I said. Beings could not exist in such a

realm, since beings need bodies to exist. Being is a temporary state.

>

>

>

> Now, we have consciousness, correct? In this case, isn't our

> consciousness of the same "nature" as what you mentioned as a

> non-physical consciousness? Or the latter has nothing in common with our

> consciousness? In this case, it should not be called consciousness, don't

> you think so?

>

>

Consciousness is non-physical, in the way I am using the terms.

>

>

>

>> > An atheist can decline to believe in any of them.

>>

>> Let's go deeper and be more precise. Do you believe that the human being

>> has some supernatural components, or is it a purely physical entity made

>> of physical matter and energy?

>>

>> As you will see from my last comment, I don’t think that humans have

>> supernatural components - we are completely natural - nor do I think that

>> we are purely physical.

>

>

> If we are purely physical, our consciousness has nothing to do with what

> you called consciousness, correct?

>

>

I said "nor do I think that we are purely physical”. Our consciousness

is what I was talking about, where by “our” I mean embodied people,

and many animals.

>

>

>

>>>Atheism refers only to a mysterious God, not about humans and living

>>> beings. When you say that you don't believe in a supernatural being, you

>>> are saying nothing about the existence of supernatural members of human

>>> beings. You see that 'atheism' is very limited.

>

>> Not really. I see no reason to think that human beings have

>> “supernatural members” - whatever you mean by that (it might mean

>> that some people are supernatural, or that parts of some people, or all

>> people, are supernatural - but neither of these is the case in my view).

>>

>>

>

>

> A phenomenon that is real but cannot be explained in scientific terms,

> can be called "supernatural", correct?

>

>

I wouldn’t use supernatural to mean non explainable in scientific

terms. By supernatural I mean (and meant) not found in natural bodies

like us. So, beings with no physical bodies, people with

“superpowers” as mentioned above. I see no reason to think, or

believe, that they exist - and God falls into this category of

non-existent being.

>

>

>

>  Now I will mention 3 of these kind of phenomena: your thinking, your

> feellings and your willing. Science has absolutely no explanation what

> they are and how they are produced. But I am sure you will agree that you

> think, have sensations and feelings (both are manifestations of "to

> feel"). You may say that science does not know what they are, but will

> know in the future. But I may make the hypothesis that this will never

> occur with them , and we recognize scientific paradigm of today. In the

> same way that with the present paradigm science will never know how was

> the origin of matter and energy in the universe, or what the boundaries

> of the universe are.

>

>

I agree.

>

>

>

> I'll give an example. Suppose you eat an apple. You feel the taste of it.

> This is a sensation. But nobody can have the sensation you are having.

> Now either you like the taste or you don't like it (the apple may not be

> ripe). These are feelings. Nobody can have your feelings when you are

> eating the apple. Sensations and feelings ar absolutely individual and

> subjective. Thus, they themselves will never be the object of physical

> science, which is universal and objective. Therefore, science is

> non-human, it cannot deal with essential humane phenomena.

>

>

I agree that it cannot deal - at least not directly - with experiential

aspects of living  beings. On the other hand, sensations and feelings are

not absolutely individual and subjective. We know how it feels to be sad,

or scared, or angry, or seasick, or sexually aroused, and we recognise

the signs of these feelings in others. We share universals of experience,

and from them of meaning, by virtue of having bodies. Even though my

bodily experience is different from yours, we both grab hold of a red-hot

poker we will react - and experience - much the same burning sensation.

We all have bodies and they all work - and react - in much the same way,

as do the associated feelings. 

 

 

 

> ZZZZ, you cannot prove that you are having some thoughts, that you are

> feeling something and that you are having willing impulses. These

> phenomena are occult! So you are an occultist, what about this?

>

>

Well, I’m some kind of psychologist so, yes, an occultist in your view

I suppose.

>

>

>> “No clue” seems like an exaggeration. There are numerous descriptions

>> of God and gods, for example the fable about a heavenly father, whose son

>> came to Earth and was killed, and a Holy Ghost.

>

>

> Fables are not conceptual descriptions directed to understanding.

> (Remember my objection to your not believing in God or gods: I wanted to

> understand what you don't believe.) Now I'll advance something: certainly

> for you, the Genesis, myths and fairy tales are just fables, histories

> that were invented by some people. Not for me: they are images of real

> phenomena, but not physical (as what you called 'consciousness'!). In

> ancient times people had the possibility of observing these phenomena,

> but not with their physical senses. But at that time they didn't have our

> ability of formulating concepts, that's why they expressed those

> non-physical realities in images, symbols. Humanity lost the non-physical

> senses that permitted that observation. This evolution was a necessity

> that I can explain.

>

>

Interesting. But why do you think they are images of real phenomena? I

don’t know what you mean by "In ancient times people had the

possibility of observing these phenomena, but not with their physical

senses” How was this “observing” done? There is long-standing view

that the ability to formulate concepts evolved at the expense of some

more direct, or experiential kind of knowledge. The Old Wisdom. I have a

view about how information technology - from writing on to the devlopment

of computers - supported that process until recently., with the

development of media, virtual reality, etc, which undermine it. And

arguable return us to a pre-literate state.

 

>

>

> As for the Christ, in the beginning of Christianity his adepts had an

> understanding of what that being was. This was lost -- just observe the

> atrocities that were perpetrated in his name, absolutely against his

> teachings and attitudes! Even today, most of Christian churches don't

> follow his teachings and don't understand what the Christ really was.

> Note that the image "son of God" makes no physical sense: God should be a

> non-physical entity, without beard and breasts, so how could he had a

> son? You see, this is also an image -- that has to be interpreted in

> non-physical concepts.

>

> 

I agree that the Christian story about the son of God - makes no sense.

>

>

>> It’s taught in Christian schools. It’s a concept that children can

>> understand,

>

> 

> No, Sir, small children have no possibility of having a conceptual

> understanding. They "understand" with their feelings.

>

> 

I didn’t specify small children. I first saw that the story of Jesus as

the son of God makes no sense as a child, at Sunday school. At about the

same age I realised Father Christmas didn’t deliver present to

everyone. Maybe around 8 or 10. I could still choose to believe both

stories, in a way, to get that old feeling.

 

 

>> just as they understand fairly stories, or Harry Potter.

>

>

> Children absorb the images of fairy tales; most of them have extremely

> deep, real significances; those images produce a positive effect on

> children. This is obviously not the case with Andersen's fairy tales,

> that were invented by him and not stemmed from old popular traditions as

> the Grimms' tales. Harry Potter is horrible.

>

>

>

Well, each person has different experiences - I thoroughly enoyed reading

Harry Potter, and the films are extremely good too.

>

>

>> Is the word “Christian” understandable?>

>

> This depends on the understanding of the Christ being and his mission. We

> are now in the position of having a good understanding of him and his

> mission.

>

>

Are we? Was he supernatural?

>

>

> BTW, if somebody exercises unselfish love, I call her/him "Christian",

> independent on what religion s/he professes.

>

>

Yes, so do I. Or a Humanist.

 

 

Best wishes,

>

>

ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

============================================

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-04, 10:47 -0400 YYYY wrote:

 

 

Hi, ZZZZ, 

 

 ZZZZ,  I have a suggestion. We are dealing with too many topics at a time.

Why don't you choose one or two so we may concentrate our conversation?

This way we would not have to spend too much time commenting all topis.

But I will continue our way, traying to comment on each passage. 

>

>

> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:13 AM ZZZZ wrote:

>

>

> Hi YYYY,

>

>

> A story is a conceptual explanation, though it may not be a detailed or

> coherent one. Their feelings are anchored - and explained - in that

> story. All conceptual explanations are ultimately gounded in feelings, or

> they have no meaning.

>

>

Not always. Mathematics is not grounded on feelings. Natural science

tries to be as objective as possible, without subjective feelings. 

>  

>

> The story of faiths are explainable - are explanations, in fact. At the

> end of your mail your said "We are now in the position of having a good

> understanding of him and his mission.”. I suppose you mean the

> Christian story, which to me is only understandable up to a point - it is

> quite incoherent, and needs faith, and associated feeling, to be

> believable.

>

>

The incoherences can be explained, e.g. the complete differences in the

beginning of Luke's and Matthew's Gospels. I don't remember if I've

already sent you this:

 

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/diffs-Luke-Matthew.pdf

 

>

> I don’t believe it, although I don’t call myself an atheist. There

> may be God stories that I find believable, but I haven’t heard them.

> So, as of now, I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe any God

> stories that I have heard.

>

>

>>>  I don’t have that kind of belief, or faith, so… that’s enough to

>>> say I don’t believe in God. That nobody can say what God means exactly

>>> is not a reason to believe, but it is one reason not to believe, surely?

>>

>>

No, as I said, you cannot explain what you understand under God.

>  

>

>> I continue not understanding what you don't believe. 

>

>  I don’t believe any God stories that I have heard. 

>

>

I told you that there is no more an understanding of what entity is

God.  Ancient stories are just images, symbols. New stories in general

have no realities behind what they tell. 

 

 

In some sense, Nietzsche was right: the God of religions is dead. This

entity has become a pure abstraction. 

 

>

> No, it’s not a contradiction. Natural living bodies have non-physical

> aspects - consciousness, experiences.

>

>

>

>

Plants don't have consciousness. Animais have -- with you hit an animal,

it feels pain. This is consciousness. What animais don't have and we have

(so we are not just animals) is self-consciousness, self-awareness. When

you think on what you are thinking, you are fully self-aware. No male dog

has sat down and decided to think about the beautiful female dog he had

seen the day before...

 

 

Now, if you assign "non-physical aspects" to, say, animals and humans,

this means that there is "something" in them that produces consciousness.

I call it a supersensible "member".  Therefore, there is "something"

non-physical in the universe, correct?

>

>

> They do have physical bodies - so they get ill and die. They do not have

> supernatural powers - Coming back from the dead, being invisible, instant

> travel over long distances, etc… Natural non-physical aspects are part

> of the world we live in - which is both physical and non-physical.

>

>

Agreed. What is missing in you are clear concepts of what is the

non-physical part of the world. For instance, what causes memory,

thinking, feeling and willing, sleep and dreams, and death. There is no

physical explanations for all of them. There is strong evidence that

their origin is not physical. I may digress on that. BTW, look at this

bilingual essay, where ai show that concepts are not physical. Please

criticize it:

 

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conceito-cerebro.pdf

 

>

>

> But I see no reason to believe there are wholly “non-physical realms or

> worlds”, like Heaven, or the Spirit World.

>

>

Well, this is just an image. That world is not limited as the physical

world, and should not be imagined using our physical experiences.  Maybe

"a non-physical realm" is a better formulation.

 

>

> There isn’t such a realm, as I said. Beings could not exist in such a

> realm, since beings need bodies to exist. Beiing is a temporary state.

>

>

But, if I remember well, you said that there is consciousness in the

world, not just in living beings. Yes, a physical being is temporary. But

if "something" non-physical gives us consciousness, why could not this

"something" subside after death? 

 

 

BTW, death means letting the body be subjected to the "laws" of nature,

and it immediately begins to decay. Therefore, "something" during life

is constantly reacting against the forces of nature. Nature is physical,

this "something" cannot be physical. We are in constant danger of dying.

"Something" non-physical in us is constantly fighting against the

physical forces of nature. BTW-2, our standing erect is also the result

of fighting against gravity. If we are standing, and get asleep, we fall.

"Something" non-physical is maintaining the muscles in such a way that we

may stay erect.

>

>

> Consciousness is non-physical, in the way I am using the terms.

>

>

Excellent. Why can't it be the result of the action of a non-physical

member we have in ourselves? This member can be described conceptually. 

>

>

> I said "nor do I think that we are purely physical”. Our consciousness

> is what I was talking about, where by “our” I mean embodied people,

>  and many animals.

>

>

ZZZZ, what you need is to acquire clear concepts of what is non-physical

in us and in the universe. These concepts exist. 

 

Forget about God. If you look at all my papers, you will never find the

word God, because, as I said, this entity has become an abstraction. I go

even further: when people say "Oh my God!" they are unconsciously

appealing for the non-physical "member" which they have in themselves,

and which directs  their life, consciously or unconsciously. Being

non-physical, this "member" is the divinity in us. 

 

>

> I wouldn’t use supernatural to mean non explainable in scientific

> terms. By supernatural I mean (and meant) not found in natural bodies

> like us. So, beings with no physical bodies, people with

> “superpowers” as mentioned above. I see no reason to think, or

> believe, that they exist - and God falls into this category of

> non-existent being.

>

>

American Heritage (1970 edition): Supernatural - 1. Of or pertaining to

existence outside the natural world; especially, not attributable to

natural forces. (The rest is about miracles -- BTW, our life, thinking,

feeling and willing are up to now [and my hypothesis is that they will

stay so forever]  miraculous -- there is no physical explanation for

them. 

 

>

>>  Now I will mention 3 of these kind of phenomena: your thinking, your

>> feellings and your willing. Science has absolutely no explanation what

>> they are and how they are produced. But I am sure you will agree that you

>> think, have sensations and feelings (both are manifestations of "to

>> feel"). You may say that science does not know what they are, but will

>> know in the future. But I may make the hypothesis that this will never

>> occur with the , and we recognisescientific paradigm of today. In the

>> same way that with the present paradigm science will never know how was

>> the origin of matter and energy in the universe, or what the boundaries

>> of the universe are. 

>

>

> I agree.

>

This is great. Now I have to convince you that we can understand those

phenomena -- not in physical terms, though.  

>

>

> Interesting. But why do you think they are images of real phenomena? I

> don’t know what you mean by "In ancient times people had the

> possibility of observing these phenomena, but not with their physical

> senses” How was this “observing” done?

>

>

With non-physical organs. The ancient hindus called them "chacras". 

>  

>

> There is long-standing view that the ability to formulate concepts

> evolved at the expense of some more direct, or experiential kind of

> knowledge.

>

>

Yes! Humanity had to abandon experiencing the non-physical world, and

direct itself to the physical world. There is a big mystery behind this:

If we would have preserved a contact with the non-physical world, we

would not have fallen into matter as we did.  This fall (its beginning

is represented in the great and deep images of the expulsion of Paradise

in Genesis) was a necessity, otherwise we would not have developed free

will. The development of free will is one of the great missions of

humanity. You may notice that we have now much more freedom that in

former times -- the problem is that humankind does not know what to do

with the freedom for the good; and evil, destruction is the result. 

 

 

>  The Old Wisdom. I have a view about how information technology - from

> writing on to the devlopment of computers - supported that process until

> recently., with the development of media, virtual reality, etc, which

> undermine it. And arguable return us to a pre-literate state.

>

>

No, ZZZZ, we cannot go back to former states. What is happening is the

diminishing of consciousness. This is very dangerous. 

 

 

> I agree that the Christian story about the son of God - makes no sense. 

>

 

But there is another story, with conceptual explanations.  

>

>

>>> It’s taught in Christian schools. It’s a concept that children can

>>> understand,

>> 

>>

>>

>> No, Sir, small children have no possibility of having a conceptual

>> understanding. They "understand" with their feelings. 

>

>

> I didn’t specify small children. I first saw that the story of Jesus

> as the son of God makes no sense as a child, at Sunday school.

>

>

Then you were already thinking as an adult. Or maybe you were old enough

to look for concepts. 

>

>

> At about the same age I realised Father Christmas didn’t deliver

> present to everyone. Maybe around 8 or 10. I could still choose to

> believe both stories, in a way, to get that old feeling.

>

>

This is absolutely normal, because small children live with images.

Santa Claus is an image -- it should never be depicted as an old man with

read clothes shouting ho! ho! This destroys the inner image shildren

should have.  (BTW, these fake Santa Clauses in malls have to wear heavy

clothes during our hot summer, poor ones... -- with fake snow around

them.)

>

>

>>> Is the word “Christian” understandable?

>> 

>>

>>

>> This depends on the understanding of the Christ being and his mission.

>> We are now in the position of having a good understanding of him and his

>> mission. 

>

>

>

> Are we? Was he supernatural?

>

>

We ourselves have supernatural "members". One of them gives us our higher

identity -- you may have a sense of it when you say "I". At the baptism

in the Jordan, the I of Jesus was replaced by the Cosmic I, the Christ.

When Moses asked the burning bush what was the name of that divinity he

should tell the Hebrew people, the voice answers "I am the I am" (a

problem is that in Hebrew -- and in Russian -- there is no present tense

to the "to be" verb). The Hebrew people was physically and mentally

commanded in order to receive the Christ being. 

 

 

BTW-n, that's the reason why the John and Mark Gospels begin at the

baptism. Before then there was just Jesus, and not the Christ in the

Jesus body. But Jesus was a very special man indeed - he had to be, in

order to receive the Christ. That's why Matthew and Luke describe him

(but just up to his 12th year, at the temple -- the rest has already been

described).

>

>

>> BTW, if somebody exercises unselfish love, I call her/him "Christian",

>> independent on what religion s/he professes.

>

>

> Yes, so do I. Or a Humanist.

>

>

You see, we have much in common! I think the big difference is

knowledge. 

 

 

With love, YYYY.  

 

 

 

 

=============================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-05, 11:15 +0200 ZZZZ wrote:

 

 

 

Hi YYYY,

 

Thanks for another interesting message.

>

>

> On 4 Aug 2022, at 16:47, YYYY:

>

>

> Hi, ZZZZ,

>

>

> ZZZZ, I have a suggestion. We are dealing with too many topics at a time.

> Why don't you choose one or two so we may concentrate our conversation?

> This way we would not have to spend too much time commenting all topis.

> But I will continue our way, traying to comment on each passage.

>

>

Yes, perhaps we should focus. I was particularly interested in what you

said about pre-literate people’s experience. How do you think this

compares with animals’ (higher mammals) experience? I once wrote a

paper called “VR for animals”. It argued that in designing convincing

VRs we are designing for people as the animals they are (though they are

not only that).

>

>

>> A story is a conceptual explanation, though it may not be a detailed or

>> coherent one. Their feelings are anchored - and explained - in that

>> story. All conceptual explanations are ultimately gounded in feelings, or

>> they have no meaning.

>

>

> Not always. Mathematics is not grounded on feelings. Natural science

> tries to be as objective as possible, without subjective feelings.

>

>

I don’t think pure mathematics can be, in itself, a conceptual

explanation. How it has meaning is an interesting question. I would argue

that to experience meaning, feelings - experiences based on our cognitive

primitives - must be involved.

> 

>

>> The story of faiths are explainable - are explanations, in fact. At the

>> end of your mail your said "We are now in the position of having a good

>> understanding of him and his mission.”. I suppose you mean the

>> Christian story, which to me is only understandable up to a point - it is

>> quite incoherent, and needs faith, and associated feeling, to be

>> believable.

>

>

> The incoherences can be explained, e.g. the complete differences in the

> beginning of Luke's and Matthew's Gospels. I don't remember if I've

> already sent you this:

>

> https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/diffs-Luke-Matthew.pdf

 

>

I don’t think you sent it before. Anyway, I have not yet looked at it,

but may do later.

> 

>

>> I don’t believe it, although I don’t call myself an atheist. There

>> may be God stories that I find believable, but I haven’t heard them.

>> So, as of now, I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe any God

>> stories that I have heard.

>

>

>>>> I don’t have that kind of belief, or faith, so… that’s enough to

>>>> say I don’t believe in God. That nobody can say what God means exactly

>>>> is not a reason to believe, but it is one reason not to believe, surely?

>>

>>

>No, as I said, you cannot explain what you understand under God.

>

>

The problem is only that there are many explanations of God - it’s not

that they don’t exist - but I haven’t come across one I could

believe. I don’t intend to go through them one by one here.

>

>

> I told you that there is no more an understanding of what entity is God.

> Ancient stories are just images, symbols. New stories in general have no

> realities behind what they tell.

>

>

But people believe them, and I don’t. Are you saying that God cannot be

explained?

>

>

> In some sense, Nietzsche was right: the God of religions is dead. This

> entity has become a pure abstraction.

>

>

Is it an abstraction, or just not believable (by you, or me)?. The

versions I have come across seem quite concrete in their claims.

>

>

>> No, it’s not a contradiction. Natural living bodies have non-physical

>> aspects - consciousness, experiences.

>

>

> Plants don't have consciousness. Animais have -- with you hit an animal,

> it feels pain. This is consciousness. What animais don't have and we have

> (so we are not just animals) is self-consciousness, self-awareness. When

> you think on what you are thinking, you are fully self-aware. No male dog

> has sat down and decided to think about the beautiful female dog he had

> seen the day before.

>

>

Well, I didn’t say all living bodies are conscious - though some think

that plants do have a variety of consciousness. It’s hard to know for

sure, but I doubt it.. There is a view, which I think has some merit,

that consciousness arose through - or goes with - locomotion, movement,

and the need for proprioception. So most plants are probably not

conscious. And yes, we have a concept of self and can reflect on it,

sometimes at the expense of not perceiving what is in front of us. That

probably does distinguish us from most other animals. But many animals

can think about absent things and events, if not about themselves

thinking about them. Perhaps a dog cannot choose to think about that

beautiful female, he may find himself thinking about her (imagining her,

say) and may well dream about her when he sleeps. Also, people are rather

limited in their ability to choose what to think about - and especially

to choose not to think about something.

 

>

>> They do have physical bodies - so they get ill and die. They do not have

>> supernatural powers - Coming back from the dead, being invisible, instant

>> travel over long distances, etc… Natural non-physical aspects are part

>> of the world we live in - which is both physical and non-physical.

>

>

> Agreed. What is missing in you are clear concepts of what is the

> non-physical part of the world. For instance, what causes memory,

> thinking, feeling and willing, sleep and dreams, and death. There is no

> physical explanations for all of them. There is strong evidence that

> their origin is not physical. I may digress on that. BTW, look at this

> bilingual essay, where ai show that concepts are not physical. Please

> criticize it:

>

> https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conceito-cerebro.pdf

 

>

Thanks, but I’ll disregard the digression in the interests of focus.

Anyway, I  agree that concepts are not physical. But they require

physical beings to realise them.  The non-physical aspects of the world

produced by  living beings. I’m not sure what you mean by physical

explanation, or what a non-physical origin might be. What is the strong

evidence you mention?

 

 

There are many explanations of memory (its chemical basis, for example,

it’s role in learning, planning, etc.), thinking (hypothesis testing

about possible future actions, learning from past mistakes), sleep

(forgetting, reestoration). Death is a given. To live is to be on the way

to dying. Every living thing dies, it’s part of life and of the

evolutionary process - death is the selector, and along with genetic

variation is how there comes to be plants, animals, people, and not just

organic slime. Evolutionary biology is a great explanatory framework, the

best we have, though not complete. I can recommend “A Mind So Rare: the

evolution of human consciousness” by Merlin Donald, if you are

interested.

 

>

>> But I see no reason to believe there are wholly “non-physical realms or

>> worlds”, like Heaven, or the Spirit World.

>

>

> Well, this is just an image. That world is not limited as the physical

> world, and should not be imagined using our physical experiences.  Maybe

> "a non-physical realm" is a better formulation.

>

>

Our experiences are not physical in themselves, but depend on the > physical.

There is no separate non-physical realm, as I have repeated.

>

>

>> There isn’t such a realm, as I said. Beings could not exist in such a

>> realm, since beings need bodies to exist. Beiing is a temporary state.

>

>

> But, if I remember well, you said that there is consciousness in the

> world, not just in living beings. Yes, a physical being is temporary. But

> if "something" non-physical gives us consciousness, why could not this

> "something" subside after death?

>

>

No, I don’t say there is consciousness in the world independent of

living beings. I wouldn’t say that something non-physical gives us

consciousness - consciousness IS non-physical. It is an essential part of

a living being (maybe not plants!). As yu pointed out earlier, it allow

us to experience pain (and much else). Feeling pain is very important for

our survival,obviously. Why/how could this non-physical something exist

after death?

 

>

> BTW, death means letting the body be subjected to the "laws" of nature,

> and it immediately begins to decay. Therefore, "something" during life is

> constantly reacting against the forces of nature. Nature is physical,

> this "something" cannot be physical. We are in constant danger of dying.

> "Something" non-physical in us is constantly fighting against the

> physical forces of nature. BTW-2, our standing erect is also the result

> of fighting against gravity. If we are standing, and get asleep, we fall.

> "Something" non-physical is maintaining the muscles in such a way that we

> may stay erect.

>

>

All living things strive to stay alive - right down to the billions of

micro-organisms in our bodies - otherwise they could not be alive. That

is part of what being alive means. Plants grow towards the light, or

support themselves with tendrils. Presumably this is done biochemically.

Our largely unconscious proprioceptive processes keeps us upright (and

much more) - it is controlled by motor programs, via nerves and sensors.

That is includes non-physical aspects (like motor programs), but they are

part of the body, how it work and are instantiated, stored, by physical

means - nerve impulses, chemical messengers, etc..

 

>

> Forget about God. If you look at all my papers, you will never find the

> word God, because, as I said, this entity has become an abstraction. I go

> even further: when people say "Oh my God!" they are unconsciously

> appealing for the non-physical "member" which they have in themselves,

> and which directs their life, consciously or unconsciously. Being

> non-physical, this "member" is the divinity in us.

>

>

But divinity is another word for god. Some people explain God that way.

>

>

>> By supernatural I mean (and meant) not found in natural bodies like us.

>> So, beings with no physical bodies, people with “superpowers” as

>> mentioned above. I see no reason to think, or believe, that they exist -

>> and God falls into this category of non-existent being.

>

>

> American Heritage (1970 edition): Supernatural - 1. Of or pertaining to

> existence outside the natural world; especially, not attributable to

> natural forces. (The rest is about miracles -- BTW, our life, thinking,

> feeling and willing are up to now [and my hypothesis is that they will

> stay so forever]  miraculous -- there is no physical explanation for

> them.

>

>

I agree that life is miraculous, and very improbable - but it’s

natural, not supernatural. As my father used to say: “Life is

wonderful. When you’re dead, you’re dead. All the rest is bunk”.

>

>

>> Interesting. But why do you think they are images of real phenomena? I

>> don’t know what you mean by "In ancient times people had the

>> possibility of observing these phenomena, but not with their physical

>> senses” How was this “observing” done?

>

> 

> With non-physical organs. The ancient hindus called them "chacras”.

>

>

Or chakras, yes I see. I don’t agree they are non-physical organs. It

is a misconception to think that what we perceive as the outer word

(outside our bodies) is the way we perceive it. It is there, but can be

perceived in many different ways. Different animals probably have quite

different perceptions of it. The development of language changed our

experience of it. But we can perceive it in different ways. Not, though,

entirely non-physically. The idea of non-physical organs is as

meaningless to me as that of non-physical bodies.

 

>

>> There is long-standing view that the ability to formulate concepts

>> evolved at the expense of some more direct, or experiential kind of

>> knowledge.

>

>

> Yes! Humanity had to abandon experiencing the non-physical world, and

> direct itself to the physical world.

>

>

I don’t think there is a non-physical world, but we can perceive the

world around us in different ways than we do generally.

>

>

> There is a big mystery behind this: If we would have preserved a contact

> with the non-physical world, we would not have fallen into matter as we

> did.  This fall (its beginning is represented in the great and deep

> images of the expulsion of Paradise in Genesis) was a necessity,

> otherwise we would not have developed free will. The development of free

> will is one of the great missions of humanity. You may notice that we

> have now much more freedom that in former times -- the problem is that

> humankind does not know what to do with the freedom for the good; and

> evil, destruction is the result.

>

>

Why is the development of free will one of the great missions of

humanity? I don’t get it. Why would humanity have any great missions -

for what purpose?

>

>

>> The Old Wisdom. I have a view about how information technology - from

>> writing on to the devlopment of computers - supported that process until

>> recently., with the development of media, virtual reality, etc, which

>> undermine it. And arguable return us to a pre-literate state.

>

>

> No, ZZZZ we cannot go back to former states. What is happening is the

> diminishing of consciousness. This is very dangerous.

>

>

It is not the same state, but there are similarities. It is based on > concrete images,

ather than abstract words. It results in a strong sense > of presence in a world – though

this is a VR, not the physical world. I > don’t see it as a diminishing of consciousness,

but  rather a reduction > in mental imagery and reflection. The machine does the

imaging for us, > and creates a world we are part of. The machine become part of

the self, > as our bodies are.

 

>

>>> No, Sir, small children have no possibility of having a conceptual

>>> understanding. They "understand" with their feelings.

>

>>

>> I didn’t specify small children. I first saw that the story of Jesus as

>> the son of God makes no sense as a child, at Sunday school.

>

>

> Then you were already thinking as an adult. Or maybe you were old enough

> to look for concepts.

>

>

I don’t know how much you know about developmental psychology, but only

the very young child would not use concepts. There are many developmental

steps from that stage to adulthood.

>

>

> We ourselves have supernatural "members". One of them gives us our higher

> identity -- you may have a sense of it when you say "I". At the baptism

> in the Jordan, the I of Jesus was replaced by the Cosmic I, the Christ.

> When Moses asked the burning bush what was the name of that divinity he

> should tell the Hebrew people, the voice answers "I am the I am" (a

> problem is that in Hebrew -- and in Russian -- there is no present tense

> to the "to be" verb). The Hebrew people was physically and mentally

> commanded in order to receive the Christ being.

>

>

These are not believable stories, for me.

>

>

> BTW-n, that's the reason why the John and Mark Gospels begin at the

> baptism. Before then there was just Jesus, and not the Christ in the

> Jesus body. But Jesus was a very special man indeed - he had to be, in

> order to receive the Christ. That's why Matthew and Luke describe him

> (but just up to his 12th year, at the temple -- the rest has already been

> described).

>

>

I don’t understand what “the Christ” means.

>

>

>>> BTW, if somebody exercises unselfish love, I call her/him "Christian",

>>> independent on what religion s/he professes.

>>

>>

>>

>> Yes, so do I. Or a Humanist.

>

>

>

>

> You see, we have much in common! I think the big difference is knowledge.

>

>

I agree we have much in common. But I think the big difference is belief.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 - ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

==========================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-05, 11:15 +0200 ZZZZ wrote:

 

 

 Hi YYYY,

 

 

Thanks for another interesting message.

>

>

> On 4 Aug 2022, at 16:47, YYYY wrote:

>

>

>

> Hi, ZZZZ,

>

>

> ZZZZ, I have a suggestion. We are dealing with too many topics at a time.

> Why don't you choose one or two so we may concentrate our conversation?

> This way we would not have to spend too much time commenting all topis.

> But I will continue our way, traying to comment on each passage.

>

>

Yes, perhaps we should focus. I was particularly interested in what you

said about pre-literate people’s experience. How do you think this

compares with animals’ (higher mammals) experience? I once wrote a

paper called “VR for animals”. It argued that in designing convincing

VRs we are designing for people as the animals they are (though they are

not only that).

>

>

>> A story is a conceptual explanation, though it may not be a detailed or

>> coherent one. Their feelings are anchored - and explained - in that

>> story. All conceptual explanations are ultimately gounded in feelings, or

>> they have no meaning.

>

>

> Not always. Mathematics is not grounded on feelings. Natural science

> tries to be as objective as possible, without subjective feelings.

>

>

I don’t think pure mathematics can be, in itself, a conceptual

explanation. How it has meaning is an interesting question. I would argue

that to experience meaning, feelings - experiences based on our cognitive

primitives - must be involved.

> 

>

>> The story of faiths are explainable - are explanations, in fact. At the

>> end of your mail your said "We are now in the position of having a good

>> understanding of him and his mission.”. I suppose you mean the

>> Christian story, which to me is only understandable up to a point - it is

>> quite incoherent, and needs faith, and associated feeling, to be

>> believable.

>

>

> The incoherences can be explained, e.g. the complete differences in the

> beginning of Luke's and Matthew's Gospels. I don't remember if I've

> already sent you this:

>

> https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/diffs-Luke-Matthew.pdf

 

>

I don’t think you sent it before. Anyway, I have not yet looked at it,

but may do later.

> 

>

>> I don’t believe it, although I don’t call myself an atheist. There

>> may be God stories that I find believable, but I haven’t heard them.

>> So, as of now, I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe any God

>> stories that I have heard.

>

>

>>>> I don’t have that kind of belief, or faith, so… that’s enough to

>>>> say I don’t believe in God. That nobody can say what God means exactly

>>>> is not a reason to believe, but it is one reason not to believe, surely?

>>

>>

>> No, as I said, you cannot explain what you understand under God.

>

>

The problem is only that there are many explanations of God - it’s not

that they don’t exist - but I haven’t come across one I could

believe. I don’t intend to go through them one by one here.

>

>

> I told you that there is no more an understanding of what entity is God.

> Ancient stories are just images, symbols. New stories in general have no

> realities behind what they tell.

>

>

But people believe them, and I don’t. Are you saying that God cannot be

explained?

>

>

> In some sense, Nietzsche was right: the God of religions is dead. This

> entity has become a pure abstraction.

>

>

>

Is it an abstraction, or just not believable (by you, or me)?. The

versions I have come across seem quite concrete in their claims.

>

>

>> No, it’s not a contradiction. Natural living bodies have non-physical

>> aspects - consciousness, experiences.

>

>

> Plants don't have consciousness. Animais have -- with you hit an animal,

> it feels pain. This is consciousness. What animais don't have and we have

> (so we are not just animals) is self-consciousness, self-awareness. When

> you think on what you are thinking, you are fully self-aware. No male dog

> has sat down and decided to think about the beautiful female dog he had

> seen the day before.

>

>

Well, I didn’t say all living bodies are conscious - though some think

that plants do have a variety of consciousness. It’s hard to know for

sure, but I doubt it.. There is a view, which I think has some merit,

that consciousness arose through - or goes with - locomotion, movement,

and the need for proprioception. So most plants are probably not

conscious. And yes, we have a concept of self and can reflect on it,

sometimes at the expense of not perceiving what is in front of us. That

probably does distinguish us from most other animals. But many animals

can think about absent things and events, if not about themselves

thinking about them. Perhaps a dog cannot choose to think about that

beautiful female, he may find himself thinking about her (imagining her,

say) and may well dream about her when he sleeps. Also, people are rather

limited in their ability to choose what to think about - and especially

to choose not to think about something.

 

>

>> They do have physical bodies - so they get ill and die. They do not have

>> supernatural powers - Coming back from the dead, being invisible, instant

>> travel over long distances, etc… Natural non-physical aspects are part

>> of the world we live in - which is both physical and non-physical.

>

>

> Agreed. What is missing in you are clear concepts of what is the

> non-physical part of the world. For instance, what causes memory,

> thinking, feeling and willing, sleep and dreams, and death. There is no

> physical explanations for all of them. There is strong evidence that

> their origin is not physical. I may digress on that. BTW, look at this

> bilingual essay, where ai show that concepts are not physical. Please

> criticize it:

>

> https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conceito-cerebro.pdf

 

>

Thanks, but I’ll disregard the digression in the interests of focus.

Anyway, I  agree that concepts are not physical. But they require

physical beings to realise them.  The non-physical aspects of the world

produced by  living beings. I’m not sure what you mean by physical

explanation, or what a non-physical origin might be. What is the strong

evidence you mention?

 

 

There are many explanations of memory (its chemical basis, for example,

it’s role in learning, planning, etc.), thinking (hypothesis testing

about possible future actions, learning from past mistakes), sleep

(forgetting, reestoration). Death is a given. To live is to be on the way

to dying. Every living thing dies, it’s part of life and of the

evolutionary process - death is the selector, and along with genetic

variation is how there comes to be plants, animals, people, and not just

organic slime. Evolutionary biology is a great explanatory framework, the

best we have, though not complete. I can recommend “A Mind So Rare: the

evolution of human consciousness” by Merlin Donald, if you are

interested.

 

>

>> But I see no reason to believe there are wholly “non-physical realms or

>> worlds”, like Heaven, or the Spirit World.

>

>

> Well, this is just an image. That world is not limited as the physical

> world, and should not be imagined using our physical experiences.  Maybe

> "a non-physical realm" is a better formulation.

>

>

Our experiences are not physical in themselves, but depend on the > physical.

There is no separate non-physical realm, as I have repeated.

>

>

>> There isn’t such a realm, as I said. Beings could not exist in such a

>> realm, since beings need bodies to exist. Beiing is a temporary state.

>

>

> But, if I remember well, you said that there is consciousness in the

> world, not just in living beings. Yes, a physical being is temporary. But

> if "something" non-physical gives us consciousness, why could not this

> "something" subside after death?

>

>

No, I don’t say there is consciousness in the world independent of

living beings. I wouldn’t say that something non-physical gives us

consciousness - consciousness IS non-physical. It is an essential part of

a living being (maybe not plants!). As yu pointed out earlier, it allow

us to experience pain (and much else). Feeling pain is very important for

our survival,obviously. Why/how could this non-physical something exist

after death?

 

>

> BTW, death means letting the body be subjected to the "laws" of nature,

> and it immediately begins to decay. Therefore, "something" during life is

> constantly reacting against the forces of nature. Nature is physical,

> this "something" cannot be physical. We are in constant danger of dying.

> "Something" non-physical in us is constantly fighting against the

> physical forces of nature. BTW-2, our standing erect is also the result

> of fighting against gravity. If we are standing, and get asleep, we fall.

> "Something" non-physical is maintaining the muscles in such a way that we

> may stay erect.

>

>

All living things strive to stay alive - right down to the billions of

micro-organisms in our bodies - otherwise they could not be alive. That

is part of what being alive means. Plants grow towards the light, or

support themselves with tendrils. Presumably this is done biochemically.

Our largely unconscious proprioceptive processes keeps us upright (and

much more) - it is controlled by motor programs, via nerves and sensors.

That is includes non-physical aspects (like motor programs), but they are

part of the body, how it work and are instantiated, stored, by physical

means - nerve impulses, chemical messengers, etc..

 

>

> Forget about God. If you look at all my papers, you will never find the

> word God, because, as I said, this entity has become an abstraction. I go

> even further: when people say "Oh my God!" they are unconsciously

> appealing for the non-physical "member" which they have in themselves,

> and which directs  their life, consciously or unconsciously. Being

> non-physical, this "member" is the divinity in us.

>

>

But divinity is another word for god. Some people explain God that way.

>

>

>> By supernatural I mean (and meant) not found in natural bodies like us.

>> So, beings with no physical bodies, people with “superpowers” as

>> mentioned above. I see no reason to think, or believe, that they exist -

>> and God falls into this category of non-existent being.

>

>

> American Heritage (1970 edition): Supernatural - 1. Of or pertaining to

> existence outside the natural world; especially, not attributable to

> natural forces. (The rest is about miracles -- BTW, our life, thinking,

> feeling and willing are up to now [and my hypothesis is that they will

> stay so forever]  miraculous -- there is no physical explanation for

> them.

>

>

I agree that life is miraculous, and very improbable - but it’s

natural, not supernatural. As my father used to say: “Life is

wonderful. When you’re dead, you’re dead. All the rest is bunk”.

>

>

>> Interesting. But why do you think they are images of real phenomena? I

>> don’t know what you mean by "In ancient times people had the

>> possibility of observing these phenomena, but not with their physical

>> senses” How was this “observing” done?

>

>

> With non-physical organs. The ancient hindus called them "chacras”.

>

>

Or chakras, yes I see. I don’t agree they are non-physical organs. It

is a misconception to think that what we perceive as the outer word

(outside our bodies) is the way we perceive it. It is there, but can be

perceived in many different ways. Different animals probably have quite

different perceptions of it. The development of language changed our

experience of it. But we can perceive it in different ways. Not, though,

entirely non-physically. The idea of non-physical organs is as

meaningless to me as that of non-physical bodies.

 

>

>> There is long-standing view that the ability to formulate concepts

>> evolved at the expense of some more direct, or experiential kind of

>> knowledge.

>

>

> Yes! Humanity had to abandon experiencing the non-physical world, and

> direct itself to the physical world.

>

>

I don’t think there is a non-physical world, but we can perceive the

world around us in different ways than we do generally.

>

>

> There is a big mystery behind this: If we would have preserved a contact

> with the non-physical world, we would not have fallen into matter as we

> did.  This fall (its beginning is represented in the great and deep

> images of the expulsion of Paradise in Genesis) was a necessity,

> otherwise we would not have developed free will. The development of free

> will is one of the great missions of humanity. You may notice that we

> have now much more freedom that in former times -- the problem is that

> humankind does not know what to do with the freedom for the good; and

> evil, destruction is the result.

>

>

Why is the development of free will one of the great missions of

humanity? I don’t get it. Why would humanity have any great missions -

for what purpose?

>

>

>> The Old Wisdom. I have a view about how information technology - from

>> writing on to the devlopment of computers - supported that process until

>> recently., with the development of media, virtual reality, etc, which

>> undermine it. And arguable return us to a pre-literate state.

>

>

> No, ZZZZ cannot go back to former states. What is happening is the

> diminishing of consciousness. This is very dangerous.

>

>

>

It is not the same state, but there are similarities. It is based on > concrete images,

rather than abstract words. It results in a strong sense > of presence in a world - though

this is a VR, not the physical world. I > don’t see it as a diminishing of consciousness,

but  rather a reduction > in mental imagery and reflection. The machine does the imaging

 for us, > and creates a world we are part of. The machine become part of the self, >

as our bodies are.

 

>

>

>>> No, Sir, small children have no possibility of having a conceptual

>>> understanding. They "understand" with their feelings.

>

>>

>> I didn’t specify small children. I first saw that the story of Jesus as

>> the son of God makes no sense as a child, at Sunday school.

>

>

> Then you were already thinking as an adult. Or maybe you were old enough

> to look for concepts.

>

>

I don’t know how much you know about developmental psychology, but only

the very young child would not use concepts. There are many developmental

steps from that stage to adulthood.

>

>

> We ourselves have supernatural "members". One of them gives us our higher

> identity -- you may have a sense of it when you say "I". At the baptism

> in the Jordan, the I of Jesus was replaced by the Cosmic I, the Christ.

> When Moses asked the burning bush what was the name of that divinity he

> should tell the Hebrew people, the voice answers "I am the I am" (a

> problem is that in Hebrew -- and in Russian -- there is no present tense

> to the "to be" verb). The Hebrew people was physically and mentally

> commanded in order to receive the Christ being.

>

>

These are not believable stories, for me.

>

>

> BTW-n, that's the reason why the John and Mark Gospels begin at the

> baptism. Before then there was just Jesus, and not the Christ in the

> Jesus body. But Jesus was a very special man indeed - he had to be, in

> order to receive the Christ. That's why Matthew and Luke describe him

> (but just up to his 12th year, at the temple -- the rest has already been

> described).

>

>

I don’t understand what “the Christ” means.

>

>

>>> BTW, if somebody exercises unselfish love, I call her/him "Christian",

>>> independent on what religion s/he professes.

>>

>>

>> Yes, so do I. Or a Humanist.

>

>

> You see, we have much in common! I think the big difference is knowledge.

>

>

>

I agree we have much in common. But I think the big difference is belief.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 - ZZZZ

>

 

 

 

 

==========================================

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-05, 08:41 -0400 YYYY wrote:

 

 

Hi, ZZZZ, 

 

 

Sorry, I have to add something to a phrase in my last e-mai (marked

below in yellow) [transcribed here in CAPITAL LETTERS].

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: YYYY

Date: Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 8:01 AM

Subject: Re: Atheism

To:ZZZZ

Cc: Kristo Ivanov <kivanov@informatik.umu.se>

 

 

 

 

Hi, ZZZZ

 

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 5:15 AM, ZZZZ

wrote:

>

> 

>

> Hi YYYY,

>

>

> Thanks for another interesting message.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On 4 Aug 2022, at 16:47, YYYY wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>> Hi, ZZZZ, 

>>

>>

>> ZZZZ, I have a suggestion. We are dealing with too many topics at a time.

>> Why don't you choose one or two so we may concentrate our conversation?

>> This way we would not have to spend too much time commenting all topis.

>> But I will continue our way, traying to comment on each passage. 

>

>

>

> Yes, perhaps we should focus. I was particularly interested in what you

> said about pre-literate people’s experience. How do you think this

> compares with animals’ (higher mammals) experience? I once wrote a

> paper called “VR for animals”. It argued that in designing convincing

> VRs we are designing for people as the animals they are (though they are

> not only that).

 

 

I thought you would choose one or two topics. As you didn't, I will. 

 

 

I think we have one thing in common: we regard consciousness as a

non-physical phenomenon. But one of our differences is that I consider

(not as a belief, as you stated, but as a working hypothesis with

overwhelming evidences) that we have non-physical "members", in fact 3

most important nowadays. One of them is responsible for our life (and

also the life in plants and animals). The second is responsible for our

having hollow organs, respiration, feelings, consciousness, etc. (animals

have it, but plants don't). The third is responsible for our ERECT POSITION,

self-awareness (which animals don't have), conscious thinking,

examining our memories, FREE WILL (WHICH CANNOT COM OUT OF

MATTER, AND ANIMAL DON'T HAVE, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD BE

RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTS), a higher identity (individuality in animals i

s due just because of genetics and the environment influence) etc.

 

 

It is mistake considering that animals have our thinking and type of

memory. Animals have a kind of sensation memory. If a dog does not smell

something of his owner, or is hungry, it cannot remember his owner. We

may decide to remember something without any reason or need for it.

Animals cannot do it -- because they are not self-conscious.

 

 

Now, domestic animals are influenced by the presence of humans, and may

reveal some almost-humane characteristics, absent in their natural state.

 

 

The 4 realms in nature, minerals, plants, animals and humans are a

consequence of the existence (or absence) of each of those members

permeating the physical body. Note that I don't consider humas as being

animals (your "not only that"). They are different from animals, albeit

having things and actions in common. If you call humans "rational

animals", as Aristoteles did, then you should call animals "movable

plants", because both have also things and actions in common (e.g.

organic tissues, internal growth due to cell division -- minerals grow by

external deposition --, tissue regenerations, reproduction, organic forms

etc.). Humans are humans, animals are animals. 

 

 

The third "member" is eternal -- that's why we may reach eternal concepts

as mathematical ones. I have a suggestion. Read carefully my little

bilingual essay on concepts, the brain and thinking. See what you don't

agree with it. This will give us an objective ground for our discussion:>

 

 

> https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conceito-cerebro.pdf

 

 

>

>

>

I have written a large paper on the 3 non-physical members. We could also

objectively discuss it. But let's begin with the one above.

 

 

About the Christ: this entity may be understood to a large degree. This

does not happen in Christian churches, which rely on feelings and not

understanding. But let us leave this topic for a much latter phase. Just

one thing: the Christ must have been a very special entity for having

influenced so much such a big part of humanity for so many centuries, and

having inspired so much art.

 

 

In the future we may also discuss VR. I have some ideas on its impact on

humans.

 

 

With love, YYYY 

 

 

 

 

=========================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-05, 10:16 -0400 YYYY  wrote:

 

 

Hi, ZZZZ, 

 

 

On consciousness:

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efVBUDnD_no

 

 

To me, all this is ridiculous. It's like speculating what a tree is just

by looking at its shadows. 

 

 

Consciousness is a consequence of non-physical activities in us. Looking

for its physical manifestations will never get to its origin. 

 

 

One of the most important considerations is that people keep talking

about calculations performed by synapsis (as, e.g. Kurzweil in

"Spiritual machines" -- what a contradiction! Machines are purely

physical, and the spirit has nothing physical in it!). But they can't

describe what these calculations are and how they are performed. It is

not even known where the following representation of two, "2" is stored

in the brain, how it is stored and how this storage is used. 

 

 

Finally, she keeps taling about information, but what shje is referring

to is data. Shanon did not develop an information theory, but  a data

theory. For data being transformed as information you need a person to

understand that data. Information requires understanding and a human to

understand it. A text in Chinese is pure data to me (and probably to

you), cecause we may process it, e.g. reformatting it. But it is not

information because we don't uderstand it. See my paper

 

 

5.7 Paper Data, information, knowledge and competence. 

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/data-info.html . Published at

the 3rd CONTECSI (International Conference on Information Sysytems) on

June 2006. Translation into Estonian, done by David Leoney; into

Ukrainian, done by Viktor Kosenko.

 

 

 

With love, 

 

 

YYYY

 

 

 

 

 

============================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-05, 17:25 +0200 ZZZZ wrote:

 

Hi YYYY,

 

 

Thanks. I haven’t seen the video, but I agree with the points you make

about information and data.

 

 

Best,

 

 

 -ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

> On 5 Aug 2022, at 16:16, YYYY wrote:

>

> Hi ZZZZ,

> 

> On consciousness:

> ……..

 

 

 

 

 

 

=============================================

 

 

 

 

 

On Friday, August 5, 2022, at 14:49  YYYY wrote:

To ZZZZ

Subject: Atheism

 

Hi ZZZZ

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 11:25 AM, ZZZZ wrote:

>

>

> Hi YYYY,

>

>

> Thanks. I haven’t seen the video, but I agree with the points you make

> about information and data.

>

 

Below is another interesting one, denying free will. As for your agreeing with

me about information and data: we are converging!

 

 

With love, YYYY. 

 

 

++++++

 

 

[You don't have free will, but don't worry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY

By Sabine Hossenfelder, who writes: “In this video I explain why free will is

incompatible with the currently known laws

of nature and why the idea makes no sense anyway. However, you

don't need free will to act responsibly and to live a happy life, and I will tell you why.”]

 

 

And here is my posting to it:

 

 

Hi, Sabine and everybody. Very interesting lecture: it has never happened that I disagreed so much with what was exposed. 1. Big Bang. This is one of the most preposterous theories in physics, taken as a dogma. Thinking physically, it is necessary to say what existed before the Big Bang. Furthermore, to circumvent the paradox that an enormous amount of matter was compressed, why didn’t it form a super-hyper-duper black hole? Physicists then come out with theories such as quantum vacuum and what not. The idea of the Big Bang is a discontinuity in space-time. This is a mathematical concept, and not a physical reality. 2. Free will cannot be proved or disproved, it has to be a personal experience. Here is one: think on two 3-digit numbers that mean absolutely nothing to you. Concentrate your thinking, imagine each one being displayed on a luminous display. Switch mentally between these imaginations. Now choose just one of them, and imagine for some seconds only its image on the display. You have just decided of what you were going to think next. There was absolutely no need to think on those numbers (they had no meaning for you), and on the one you chose to concentrate. These were your own decisions, out of your *free will*. Stating that this is an illusion does not conform with the experience. For you, this experience is absolutely real. 3. She talks about particles. But we don’t know what they are. The electron is not a tiny ball and it does not revolve around the nucleus. Nobody knows what it is. Quantum mechanics uses formulas with terms which cannot be understood, as the spin of particles. Or instantaneous quantum jumps. Or non-locality (Einstein: “Spooky action at a distance.”). Any experiment with an atomic particle changes its state: it is impossible to examine a particle in its original, natural state, so it is impossible to know what it is. 4. Physics uses formulas whose terms are measures done by instruments. Formulas are mathematical models, they are not the reality and they express approximately only what happens in those instruments. Her “scientific evidence” does not deal with reality, but with artificial experiments. 5. She says “Your brain is doing a calculation”. But nobody can tell what the hell this calculation is. We don’t know what thinking is, in terms of brain activity. We don’t even know where the following representation of the number two, “2”, is stored in the brain and how we use it. About this, see my bilingual essay https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conceito-cerebro.pdf. I agree with her statement: “To make the best of your thinking apparatus, you need to understand how it works. Unfortunately for her, nobody knows how our brain works." We know just some of its characteristics, all consequences and not causes. 6. She says “we are just running software” but nobody can show this software, much less the circuitry that interprets it (computers interpret software, they don’t execute it). 7. If one speaks about the software in the brain, it is necessary to show the code used and interpreted by the brain. We don’t know this code. My strong conjecture: it does not exist. 8. About determinism: astonishingly, she seems to ignore the Uncertainty Principle. Now take a living cell: my conjecture is that it is impossible to determine what it’s going to happen next, will it start subdividing, will it stay as it is, and will it start to die? It seems to me that there is a physical non-determinism in this change of states. Now take thousands, millions of cells in a tissue: which ones will change their state in the next instant? Also, a huge physical non-determinism. My theory: the choice of which non-deterministic state transition to take next does not require energy, and thus can be influenced by “something” that is not physical: the model that regulates growth and tissue regeneration; that’s why, e.g., our hands and ears grow symmetrically. BTW: a neuron with the same inputs sometimes fires, other times doesn’t – another physical non-determinism. 9. And here we get to the main difference between Sabine and myself: she is a root materialist, and I am not. I admit, by hypothesis (not faith), that there are “substances”, and “members” in living beings, which are not physical. A Setzer’s “law”: “Materialist is someone who lives and works in a building which has no ground floor: s/he does not know what matter is.” Remember also the 85% of dark, unknown energy and 10% of dark, unknown matter. 10. According to Sabine and others, we are determined by our internal states and the environment; but then we cannot be responsible for our acts. They are imposed on us. Einstein, being a determinist, said something like “I recognize that a criminal is not responsible for his acts. But this does not mean that I have to drink tea with him.” But when it became known about the Nazi extermination camps, he assigned responsibility to the whole of the German people. Typical scientist inconsistency.

 

 

 

 

 

=============================

=============================

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-06, 12:14 +0200 ZZZZ wrote:

 

Hi YYYY,

 

 

I started to reply to the main thread our exchanges, but then your

addendum came and I decided to focus on “conceito-cerebro” and return

to the thread later.

 

 

> The third "member" is eternal -- that's why we may reach eternal concepts

> as mathematical ones. I have a suggestion. Read carefully my little

> bilingual essay on concepts, the brain and thinking. See what you don't

> agree with it. This will give us an objective ground for our discussion:

>

>

>> https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conceito-cerebro.pdf

>

>

The first 3 points are uncontentious, but

 

 

 

4. This shows that we work mentally with the pure concepts of numbers,

not their symbolic representation. When we see a symbolic representation

of a number, our thinking associates it with the pure concept of the

number.

 

 

I don’t see that this follows. We work with symbolic representations of

numbers. Some might use “2”, others “two”. They mean the same

thing, but the first belongs to a system of symbolic represention that is

better for doing maths. Much of maths is done on paper, or blackboards,

and mentally of course. For both we use symbolic representations of

numbers.

 

 

 

6. If it has no symbolic representation, it cannot be physically

represented and therefore cannot be recorded in any apparatus and in our

brain.

 

 

But we do use our brains, and computers, to do maths. Both use symbolic

representations to do it. When I think about “2”, I experience the

symbolic representation and so give it meaning.

 

 

7. The same is true for all concepts of numbers and objects; the concept

of "door" does not physically exist; every door is a physical

implementation of the concept "door”.

 

 

I think you must be using the term “pure concepts” and in the above

“concepts” to mean what we experience when we use these symbolic

representations - the meaning we associate with them. But I don’t see

where that gets us.

 

 

 

9. Since concepts are not in the physical world, I will say that they are

in the "Platonic world of ideas," which is not physical.

 

 

I think the Platonic world of ideas does not exist independently of the

people experiencing the ideas. The people are both  hysical and

non-physical. The world is both physical and non-physical. There is no

totally non-physical world.

 

 

15. Therefore, thinking must have a component that is not physical,

otherwise it would not reach the non-physical world of ideas.

 

 

The thinking that we experience consciously is not entirely physical,

since we are conscious of it. I think that being conscious of some of our

thinking may give us an evolutionary advantage, which may be why we are.

Otherwise, we might either be unconscious, or conscious of things other

than our thinking - such as the present world around us.

 

 

18. The possibility of determining the next thought shows that we can

have freedom in thinking. This fact cannot be proven: it has to be

experienced by everyone.

 

 

Not everyone can or does experience this, at least not most of the time.

I am not in control of what of what I am thinking now - it comes to my

consciousness without my willing it. I can choose to, say, imagine some

object, but that is limited freedom. When I am writing a paper, and the

ideas and words are flowing nicely, I don’t choose what to write. Often

this “letting my fingers do the thinking” works better than trying to

plan an argument or narrative consciously. We respond in conversations in

a way and at speeds that show that we are often not conscious of what we

are going to say - until we have said it. And many people - perhaps all

people at times - by not being able to not think about something. This is

not to say that we do not have some freedom of thinking, some free will.

 

 

19. Freedom in thinking cannot come from the physical brain. If the

functioning of the latter was determined by its physical states and

external impulses, it would be subjected exclusively to the "laws" of

nature, which are inexorable.

 

 

Yes. Consciousness must have causal power. And the brain/mind is both

physical and non-physical. Disembodied minds don’t exist, and neither

do zombies.

 

 

20. How something that is not physical (our thinking) can influence the

behavior of something physical (our brain) without  violating physical

“laws” and  conditions, is the object of another of my theories,

based on non- deterministic physical transitions among states.

 

 

This is what they call the hard problem of ocnsciousness. Some claim that

consciousness needs to be incorportated into the “physical laws”.

 

 

I’d be very interested to hear your theory.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 - ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

==============================

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-06, 10:10 -0400 YYYY wrote:

 

 

 

Dear ZZZZ, 

 

 

Oh oh, I thought we could concentrate on some problems and just write

some phrases... Look at the result:

 

 

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 6:14 AM, ZZZZ

wrote:

>

>

> Hi YYYY,

>

>

> I started to reply to the main thread our exchanges, but then your

> addendum came and I decided to focus on “conceito-cerebro” and return

> to the thread later.

>

 

 

 

Great! I'm anxious to hear objections to it. Maybe this way I may perfect

it. 

 

 

>> The third "member" is eternal -- that's why we may reach eternal concepts

>> as mathematical ones. I have a suggestion. Read carefully my little

>> bilingual essay on concepts, the brain and thinking. See what you don't

>> agree with it. This will give us an objective ground for our discussion:

>

 

>>>https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conceito-cerebro.pdf 

>

>

> The first 3 points are uncontentious, but

>

>

>

> 4. This shows that we work mentally with the pure concepts of numbers,

> not their symbolic representation. When we see a symbolic representation

> of a number, our thinking associates it with the pure concept of the

> number.

>

>

> I don’t see that this follows. We work with symbolic representations of

> numbers. Some might use “2”, others “two”. They mean the same

> thing,

>

>

Exactly, they "mean" the same pure concept of 2. Or, much better, they

are representations of the pure concept. One should not mix a

representation with a concept.

 

>

>

>  but the first belongs to a system of symbolic represention that is

> better for doing maths. Much of maths is done on paper, or blackboards,

> and mentally of course. For both we use symbolic representations of

> numbers.

>

>

Yes, but in fact we mentally manipulate the pure concepts, and not the

symbols themselves! E,g,

 

2 + 3 = 5

 

is for us exactly the same as 

 

2 plus tre equals fem 

 

Why do they have the same meaning? Because we mentally work with their

pure concepts, and not their representations. 

>

>

> 6. If it has no symbolic representation, it cannot be physically

> represented and therefore cannot be recorded in any apparatus and in our

> brain.

>

>

> But we do use our brains, and computers, to do maths.

>

>

Yes, but you cannot prove scientifically that our thoughts are generated

by the brain. At most, one can scientifically say that the brain

participates in the process of thinking.  If there is a lesion in the

brain, one loses some mental abilities, but this does not show that these

abilities are generated by the brain. I know that most neurologists will

want to kill me for stating this...

 

 

´

> Both use symbolic representations to do it. When I think about “2”, I

> experience the symbolic representation and so give it meaning.

>

>

ZZZZ, it does not matter what the representation is, as I have shown

above. Furthermore, there must be something universal, objective behind

the representations, because everybody interprets it in the same way. My

point is that everybody is accessing the same pure concept, which is not

in any particular brain. 

 

 

I understand your difficulty: you have to think differently to imagine

something that is not physical. We are too much imprisoned to our

physical experiences. But, ZZZZ, please note that it cannot be proved

that thinking, feelings and willing are purely physical phenomena. So I

have the right to suppose that they -- or their origin -- are not. But

much more than that: the same applies to life, to our memory, sleep,

dreams, consciousness, self-awareness, and so on. One of your problems is

that you don't know of a good theory involving our non-physical members,

and how they produce those phenomena. I am so sure because I know of one

such theory. It is consistent, extremely vast and encompassing, does not

contradict known physical facts (but contradicts many accepted judgements

of physical facts, e.g. Darwinian evolution, the Big Bang, that the blood

flows due to the action of the heart as a pump etc.) and personal

experiences.

 

 

> 7. The same is true for all concepts of numbers and objects; the concept

> of "door" does not physically exist; every door is a physical

> implementation of the concept "door”.

>

>

> I think you must be using the term “pure concepts” and in the above

> “concepts” to mean what we experience when we use these symbolic

> representations - the meaning we associate with them. But I don’t see

> where that gets us.

>

>

I wanted to show that even something so simple as a door has a subjacent

pure concept attached to it. It's part of its reality.

 

 

1. We perceive the light impulses coming from the physical door. 2. We

form an inner image of it, the mental representation (this is already a

big mystery in neuroscience). 3a. Then with our thinking we access the

pure concept attached to the door. 4. This way we complete the

perception. 

 

3b. Then with our feelings we like or dislike that door (another big

mystery in science).

 

What is reality? Not as empiricists (Berkeley, Hume) say, that it is just

our mental representations. Not as idealists like Fichte, who says that

reality is only the idea we form of what we perceive. Think about this,

ZZZZ: reality is the physical object and its concept. 

 

 

These ideas are not mine. I adopt them because I find an immense truth in

them. (The formulation is mine, though.)

 

>

>

> 9. Since concepts are not in the physical world, I will say that they are

> in the "Platonic world of ideas," which is not physical.

>

>

> I think the Platonic world of ideas does not exist independently of the

> people experiencing the ideas. The people are both  hysical and

> non-physical. The world is both physical and non-physical. There is no

> totally non-physical world.

>

>

You are right: when speaking about physical objects, both are

intermingled. A plant has its physical body, but has also something

non-physical that gives it all its life processes. Besides its physical

body, it also has its pure concept -- that's why, by observing its form,

we distinguish its species. The species and all its characteristics is

the pure concept.

 

 

BTW, a mineral doesn't have that something, and this is why it has no

life -- and crystal or amorphous form, because it is only subjected to

physical forces. Organic forms don't stem from physical forces.

 

 

When we are awake, we are acting against the force of gravitation. As I

already said, if we are standing and get asleep, we fall down. One of our

non-physical members is able to act upon our physical body and maintain

our erect position. When we fall asleep, this member "leaves" our body.

We also lose consciousness; consciousness is due to another non-physical

member which also (almost totally) abandons our body during sleep. But

during sleep our non-physical member which is responsible to our life

processes does not leave the body. If it does, we die, we are transformed

into a pure physical system, subjected to the "laws" of nature -- and we

begin to decay.

 

>

>

> 15. Therefore, thinking must have a component that is not physical,

> otherwise it would not reach the non-physical world of ideas.

>

> The thinking that we experience consciously is not entirely physical,

> since we are conscious of it. I think that being conscious of some of our

> thinking may give us an evolutionary advantage, which may be why we are.

> Otherwise, we might either be unconscious, or conscious of things other

> than our thinking - such as the present world around us.

>

>

Yes. But I go further: consciousness is due to the action of a

non-physical member we have in ourselves.

 

>

>

> 18. The possibility of determining the next thought shows that we can

> have freedom in thinking. This fact cannot be proven: it has to be

> experienced by everyone.

>

>

> Not everyone can or does experience this, at least not most of the time.

>

>

I think everybody can experience that s/he may concentrate her/his

thinking. Otherwise, nobody would be able to do by hand a simple addition

with many digits. If during the addition one thinks on other things, the

result will be wrong.

 

Sure, not only most of the times, but almost all the times. To produce e

a mental concentration, you have to observe your own thinking. With what

do you do that? With your thinking. When observing one's thinking, the

object of the observation (the thoughts) are identical with the act of

observing (thinking). This is the only phenomenon where the object is

identical to the subject. You digest food, and not digestion itself. 

But you may think about your own thinking.

 

In general, we don't think about our thinking: we think about what we

perceive, including our memories. It is necessary to make an inner effort

to concentrate the thinking, observing what we are thinking. This

thinking about thinking was called (not by me) a "state of exception".

 

>

>

> I am not in control of what of what I am thinking now

>

>

>

>

Sure you are!!! Otherwise you would not have been able to express

coherent words and phrases!

>  

>

>  - it comes to my consciousness without my willing it.

>

>

No ZZZZ, you are wrong here. Let me give you a mental exercise.

 

Sit down, preferably in a silent room (without the noise of the

computer's fan!). Close your eyes, and produce an inner calm (for this,

you may concentrate some moments on your normal breathing). Now imagine a

display with red numbers. Now imagine the number 100 and mentally say to

yourself "ett hundra", without uttering any sound. Now imagine 99 on the

display, and say to yourself "nittionio" (I hope the Swedish is correct)

and so on, down to zero. Observe your thinking so that no other sounds or

images penetrate your consciousness.

 

1. There is absolutely no need for your making this mental exercise. 2.

Thus, it's a free choice. With it, you experience free will. 3. You have

to observe your thinking -- with your thinking. 4. Observe the effort,

the conscious will, that you have to exercise in order to perform the

exercise; it's an effort of mental concentration. 5. Observe to what

number you got without some other image or "sound" penetrated your

thoughts. This is a test of your capacity for mental concentration.

Repeating the exercise during a long period of time you may improve your

capacity for concentrating your thoughts. 

>

>

>  I can choose to, say, imagine some object, but that is limited freedom.

> When I am writing a paper, and the ideas and words are flowing nicely, I

> don’t choose what to write.

>

>

Yes, you choose, otherwise you would be thinking in other subjects and

write about them!

 >

>

> Often this “letting my fingers do the thinking” works better than

> trying to plan an argument or narrative consciously.

>

>

No, ZZZZ, you have to pay attention on what you are writing, otherwise

the writing itself becomes just scribbles. What you do is to let your

thinking drift without choosing your next thought. I call this state

"intuitive thinking" (very important for having new ideas), opposed to

rational thinking. But after having a new idea, you had to formulate it

precisely to write it down coherently.

>  

>

>  We respond in conversations in a way and at speeds that show that we are

> often not conscious of what we are going to say - until we have said it.

> And many people - perhaps all people at times - by not being able to not

> think about something. This is not to say that we do not have some

> freedom of thinking, some free will.

>

>

You mean that we sometimes speak using our memories, and not thinking

beforehand on what we are going to think. I think that, even then, we

must have some consciousness on what we say, otherwise our phrases will

have no sequence, no coherence.

 

>

>

> 19. Freedom in thinking cannot come from the physical brain. If the

> functioning of the latter was determined by its physical states and

> external impulses, it would be subjected exclusively to the "laws" of

> nature, which are inexorable.

>

>

> Yes. Consciousness must have causal power. And the brain/mind is both

> physical and non-physical. Disembodied minds don’t exist, and neither

> do zombies.

>

>

I don't think it is consciousness that has causal power, it's our willing

acting upon our thinking. Most philosophers have disregarded the

importance of our thinking. For instance, Hegel gave importance to

concepts, and not to thinking -- which is necessary to reach concepts.

Schopenhauer gave importance to willing.

 

We don't have free thinking, we have free will of what to think.

 

>

>

> 20. How something that is not physical (our thinking) can influence the

> behavior of something physical (our brain) without  violating physical

> “laws” and  conditions, is the object of another of my theories,

> based on non- deterministic physical transitions among states.

>

>

> This is what they call the hard problem of consciousness. Some claim that

> consciousness needs to be incorportated into the “physical laws”. 

>

>

Yes, but there is another hard problem: thinking. But maybe people speak

about consciousness being hard because thinking is a clear inner activity

(in fact, the clearest one!), and consciousness is something nebulous. 

There are many other hard problems: sensations, for example. When you eat

an apple, how come you feel its taste? And feelings: how come you like or

dislike tis taste?

 

 

I think it was David Chalmers who wrote that a new form of (physical)

energy was necessary to describe consciousness. He just can't think that

its origin maybe non-physical:

 

http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

 

BTW, his phrase

 

There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, is

wrong. What we know more intimately is our thinking. 

 

 

>I’d be very interested to hear your theory.

 

 

Great! I'll expose it some other time. It's very simple. Maybe I've

solved a millennial problem: how is it possible that something that is

not physical, thus not having physical forces, can act upon the physical

world?

 

 

 

With love, YYYY. 

 

 

 

 

=====================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-07, 11:24 +0200 ZZZZ wrote:

 

> Hi YYYY,

>

> Yes, but in fact we mentally manipulate the pure concepts, and not the

> symbols themselves! E,g,

>

> 2 + 3 = 5

>

> is for us exactly the same as

>

> 2 plus tre equals fem

>

No, it isn’t. It has the same meaning, but it’s not the same for us

when it comes to mental arithmetic, which is why we use particular

symbolic representations for doing maths.

 

And this is why it’s easier to do maths with arabic numerals than with

roman, even though they mean the same.

>

 

> Why do they have the same meaning? Because we mentally work with their

> pure concepts, and not their representations.

>

No, you are mistaken. We work, mentally, with their representations. That

is how a brain can do maths.

 

Try finding the sum of these:

 

twenty-one

one hundred and fifty-three

nine thousand six hundred and seventy-two

eight

eleven

two hundred and sixty-five

one

 

Versus of these:

 

21

153

9672

8

11

265

1

 

 

 

If you time your mental work, you will see that the first one takes much

longer, if it’s even possible.

 

> I understand your difficulty: you have to think differently to imagine

> something that is not physical. We are too much imprisoned to our

> physical experiences. But, ZZZZ, please note that it cannot be proved

> that thinking, feelings and willing are purely physical phenomena. So I

> have the right to suppose that they -- or their origin -- are not. But

> much more than that: the same applies to life, to our memory, sleep,

> dreams, consciousness, self-awareness, and so on. One of your problems

> is that you don't know of a good theory involving our non-physical

> members, and how they produce those phenomena. I am so sure because I

> know of one such theory. It is consistent, extremely vast and

> encompassing, does not contradict known physical facts (but contradicts

> many accepted judgements of physical facts, e.g. Darwinian evolution,

> the Big Bang, that the blood flows due to the action of the heart as a

> pump etc.) and personal experiences.

>

You would need to state this theory for your argument above to have any

force.

 

 

>> 9. Since concepts are not in the physical world, I will say that they

>> are in the "Platonic world of ideas," which is not physical.

>>

>> I think the Platonic world of ideas does not exist independently of the

>> people experiencing the ideas. The people are both  hysical and

>> non-physical. The world is both physical and non-physical. There is no

>> totally non-physical world.

>>

>> You are right: when speaking about physical objects, both are

>> intermingled. A plant has its physical body, but has also something

>> non-physical that gives it all its life processes.

>

We agree on this, at least.

 

>> The thinking that we experience consciously is not entirely physical,

>> since we are conscious of it. I think that being conscious of some of

>> our thinking may give us an evolutionary advantage, which may be why we

>> are. Otherwise, we might either be unconscious, or conscious of things

>> other than our thinking - such as the present world around us.

>>

> Yes. But I go further: consciousness is due to the action of a

> non-physical member we have in ourselves.

 

 

 

Something non-physical (in the generally understood sense of that word),

yes. I don’t know what you mean by “member” - I guess it just means

“part”, a non-physical part or component?

 

>>

>> 18. The possibility of determining the next thought shows that we can

>> have freedom in thinking. This fact cannot be proven: it has to be

>> experienced by everyone.

>>

>> Not everyone can or does experience this, at least not most of the time.

>>

> I think everybody can experience that s/he may concentrate her/his

> thinking. Otherwise, nobody would be able to do by hand a simple

> addition with many digits. If during the addition one thinks on other

> things, the result will be wrong.

 

 

Yes, that’s true. But for much of what we do, we don’t need attention

to be focused on our thinking. In fact, we need it not to be - when there

is an urgent need to act in the world, for example.

 

 

>> I am not in control of what of what I am thinking now

>

> Sure you are!!! Otherwise you would not have been able to express

> coherent words and phrases!

>

 

 

Not true! You underestimate the level of automaticity in human thought

and action.

 

 

>

>> I can choose to, say, imagine some object, but that is limited freedom.

>> When I am writing a paper, and the ideas and words are flowing nicely, I

>> don’t choose what to write.

>>

> Yes, you choose, otherwise you would be thinking in other subjects and

> write about them!

>

 

 

No, I don’t. What I cannot do when I am not choosing what to write is

write on other topics! I have chosen the topic, yes. I have at some time,

consciously and unconsciously prepared by thinking about the topic. But

when writing, I often don’t consciously choose what words to write, or

even what sentences.  Conscious monitoring often, mostly, works at a high

level - conscious monitoring of automated, unconscious processes,

including in much thought and language.

 

 

> You mean that we sometimes speak using our memories, and not thinking

> beforehand on what we are going to think. I think that, even then, we

> must have some consciousness on what we say, otherwise our phrases will

> have no sequence, no coherence.

>

 

 

Some minimal consciousness, yes, but very little. The coherence comes

from practice, like driving a manual car, or playing the piano. We are

highly skilled performers of speech and text. And we always use memories

when speaking - for example, we track the topic of a conversation, what

has already been said (and by whom if we are in a social group) and even

predict what can be a winning, or effective, conversation move - say in

an argument. Both planning and memory. Most of this is done

unconsciously. Our attentional capacity is too limited for it to be

otherwise.

 

 

 

>> I’d be very interested to hear your theory.

>>

> Great! I'll expose it some other time. It's very simple. Maybe I've

> solved a millennial problem: how is it possible that something that is

> not physical, thus not having physical forces, can act upon the physical

> world?

>

 

 

Nobel Prize-wiinning, if that is the case. Now I am even more eager to

hear it!

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 - ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

===============================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-07, 11:52 +0200 ZZZZ wrote:

 

Hi again YYYY,

 

 

This was written before the mail I sent you earlier today, in response to

your previoius mail.

 

 

> On 5 Aug 2022, at 14:01, YYYY wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> I think we have one thing in common: we regard consciousness as a

> non-physical phenomenon. But one of our differences is that I consider

> (not as a belief, as you stated, but as a working hypothesis with

> overwhelming evidences) that we have non-physical "members", in fact 3

> most important nowadays. One of them is responsible for our life (and

> also the life in plants and animals). The second is responsible for our

> having hollow organs, respiration, feelings, consciousness, etc. (animals

> have it, but plants don't). The third is responsible for our erect

> position, self-awareness (which animals don't have), conscious thinking,

> examining our memories, free will (which cannot come out of matter,and

> animals don't have, otherwise they would be responsible for their acts),

> a higher identity (individuality in animals is due just because of

> genetics and the environment influence) etc.

>

>

>

 

 

I would be interested in the “overwhelming evidences” for this

“working hypothesis”. How would you test it?

>

>

> It is mistake considering that animals have our thinking and type of

> memory. Animals have a kind of sensation memory. If a dog does not smell

> something of his owner, or is hungry, it cannot remember his owner. We

> may decide to remember something without any reason or need for it.

> Animals cannot do it -- because they are not self-conscious.

>

>

>

One does not need to be self-conscious to remember things. We are animals

- there really is overwhelming evidence for this. Just look at our

physical form, our skeleton, our organs… There is a very long chain of

evolution leading back to the simplest life forms. We have inherited much

of physical and emotional functioning from less mentally developed

animals. But some higher mammals do seem to think, to be able to solve

problems - chimpanzees and gorillas, for example. As for dogs, your

description does not match my extensive experience with them. We have a

male poodle who clearly forms plans to achieve his aims. We have a female

who can recognise when her owner is coming home by the sound of her

vehicle.

>

>

> The 4 realms in nature, minerals, plants, animals and humans are a

> consequence of the existence (or absence) of each of those members

> permeating the physical body. Note that I don't consider humas as being

> animals (your "not only that"). They are different from animals, albeit

> having things and actions in common. If you call humans "rational

> animals", as Aristoteles did, then you should call animals "movable

> plants", because both have also things and actions in common (e.g.

> organic tissues, internal growth due to cell division -- minerals grow by

> external deposition --, tissue regenerations, reproduction, organic forms

> etc.). Humans are humans, animals are animals.

>

>

We do have a great deal in common with other primates. Some animals may

be close to plant-like (in fact, the boundary is not a clear one), but

neither we, nor other apes, nor dogs, are.. To call a gorilla a moveable

plant is absurd. But “rational animal” is a pretty accurate

description of humans. Like animals, we are conscious, striving to avoid

death, and subject to bodily needs, fears and other feelings that come

with being mortal and having a body.

 

The story you believe in - about the divinity - is, as far as I

understand it, not so very untypical of the stories people create and

tell themselves and others to avoid accepting mortality. As you said, we

strive throughout our lives to avoid death, as do all creatures. For a

thinking animal like us, it’s understandable to try to find a

“loop-hole” to escape from death. Hence the religious stories. But,

as far as I can see, there is no escape - and that’s OK. What would

come after death? Life after death - i.e. life after life? And then death

again - that leads nowhere. Or no death? But life without death is not

life - death is part and parcel of the true meaning of life, which is in

the living against the backdrop of inevitable death.

>

>

> The third "member" is eternal -- that's why we may reach eternal concepts

> as mathematical ones.

>

>

I await some evidence for the existence of these “members”.

>

>

> About the Christ: this entity may be understood to a large degree.

>

You would need to explain to me how to understand this.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 - ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-07, 09:58 -0400 YYYY wrote:

 

>

 

Ho. ZZZZ, 

>

>

> On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 5:24 AM, ZZZZ wrote:

>

>

> Hi YYYY,

>

>

>> Yes, but in fact we mentally manipulate the pure concepts, and not the

>> symbols themselves! E,g,

>>

>> 2 + 3 = 5

>> is for us exactly the same as 

>> 2 plus tre equals fem 

>

>

> No, it isn’t. It has the same meaning,

>

>

 

But what is meaning? I have a characterization of what "understanding"

means: you understand something when you are able to associate with your

thinking a correct perception or a a remembrance to its correct concept.

 

I will modify somewhat an example by Herbert Spencer:

 

Suppose you look at a bush, and one of its branches moves. You can only

see its tip. But there is no wind, and the other branches did not move.

You become curious, because you don't understand the phenomenon.

Suddenly, a bird flies out of the bush. You think, aha! (the famous

aha!), that was the reason the branch moved! What happened? When the

bird flew away, you could associate the movement of the branch to the

presence and flying of the bird. You associated the concept of the

movement to a concept of its cause. Now you are satisfied: you could

conceptually understand what happened. You attached meaning to the

perceptions. (All this, besides the perceptions themselves, is done with

your thinking, an organ for the perception of concepts.) BTW, this is the

origin of science.

 

>

> but it’s not the same for us when it comes to mental arithmetic, which

> is why we use particular symbolic representations for doing maths.

>

>

Well, one could use the symbols and just make a syntactic manipulation on

them (that's what a computer does). BTW, mathematics and logics is all a

question of syntax, not of semantics. Any semantic we assign to them, as

the 'interpretation' in mathematical logic, is in fact symbol

manipulation using a set or fixed rules, the syntax.

 

Maybe you have memorized that the symbols 2+3 associate to the symbol 5.

But this was not the case with

 

 2 plus tre equals fem 

 

because you had never seen such a sequence of symbols. But the result is

the same, because you worked with the corresponding concepts.

 

>

>

> And this is why it’s easier to do maths with arabic numerals than with

> roman, even though they mean the same. 

>

>

Well, it's impossible to do calculations using just Roman numerals.

That's why before Fibonacci introduced the Arabic numeral into Europe in

the beginning of the 13th century, the calculations were done with an

abacus (see below). This was a big problem, because the calculations

could not be registered and verified; just the input data and the result

were written down in Roman numerals. Fibonacci's book Liber Abaci was a

revolution in commerce, interest calculations etc. 

 

[FIGURES – FOUND AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_abacus

And at https://www.amazon.com/Matemática-Pode-Interessante-Linda-Blucher/dp/6555060220]

Roman abacus -- I have this figure in my book "Mathematics can be

interesting... and beautiful", in Portuguese, about spirals, the

Fibonacci sequence, golden ration, and proportions and symmetry in nature:

]

 

 

>>Why do they have the same meaning? Because we mentally work with their

>> pure concepts, and not their representations.

>

 

> No, you are mistaken. We work, mentally, with their representations. That

> is how a brain can do maths.

>

>

ZZZZ, you don't do calculations with the representations tre and fem. You

do calculations with their concepts. Pure concepts do not have

representations, and we work with them. 

 

>

> Try finding the sum of these:

> 

> twenty-one

> one hundred and fifty-three

> nine thousand six hundred and seventy-two

> eight

> eleven

> two hundred and sixty-five

> one

>

>

> Versus of these:

>

>

>21

>153

>9672

>8

>11

>265

1

>

>

> If you time your mental work, you will see that the first one takes much

> longer, if it’s even possible.

>

>

Sure it is possible. Just not having to memorize the partial results, I

could write them down as strings of letters. But I would be using their

concepts in the same way as in your second form.

 

Don't tell me we have "stored" in our brains all possible representations

of numbers! Even if you think so, you won't be able to tell where and how

they are stored, and how they are used. This is just materialistic

speculation. 

 

You could say that my interpretation is also a speculation. If one admits

the possibility of our working with non-physical concepts, it makes much

more sense. That's the big problem, ZZZZ: you are having a difficulty of

admitting that we have non-physical members, and that there is a platonic

non-physical world of ideas, concepts (I make a distinction between them,

but this is not important now). These difficulties are understandable:

people are so much attached to physical perceptions, and reasoning on

them, that it's difficult to change one's way of thinking and admit a

non-physical world, and that we are able to reach it. But I have some

hope of convincing you, because you admit that something is not physical,

consciousness. 

 

 

I confess that before you told me this, I thought you were a materialist,

physicalist (a much better and encompassing denomination than

"atheist"!). But you are not, and this makes me very very happy.

 

>

>

>> I understand your difficulty: you have to think differently to imagine

>> something that is not physical. We are too much imprisoned to our

>> physical experiences. But, ZZZZ, please note that it cannot be proved

>> that thinking, feelings and willing are purely physical phenomena. So I

>> have the right to suppose that they -- or their origin -- are not. But

>> much more than that: the same applies to life, to our memory, sleep,

>> dreams, consciousness, self-awareness, and so on. One of your problems is

>> that you don't know of a good theory involving our non-physical members,

>> and how they produce those phenomena. I am so sure because I know of one

>> such theory. It is consistent, extremely vast and encompassing, does not

>> contradict known physical facts (but contradicts many accepted judgements

>> of physical facts, e.g. Darwinian evolution, the Big Bang, that the blood

>> flows due to the action of the heart as a pump etc.) and personal

>> experiences.

>

>

> You would need to state this theory for your argument above to have any

> force.

>

>

OK. You asked for it. A long time ago I wrote a small introduction to

it; I am sure that I would have written differently nowadays, but the

basics should be the same:

 

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/const1-eng.htm

 

>

>>> The thinking that we experience consciously is not entirely physical, since we

>>> are conscious of it. I think that being conscious of some of our thinking may give

>>> us an evolutionary advantage, which may be why we are. Otherwise we might

>>> either be unconscious, or conscious of things other than our thinking – such as

>>>the present world around us.

>

>

>

>> Yes. But I go further: consciousness is due to the action of a

>> non-physical 'member' we have in ourselves.

>

> Something non-physical (in the generally understood sense of that word),

> yes. I don’t know what you mean by “member” - I guess it just means

> “part”, a non-physical part or component?

>

>

 

Yes. But the word 'part' has the connotation of partition (in the

mathematical sense). I prefer 'member', thinking about our members and

organs. They are somewhat independent, each one with its own

characteristics, but at the same time they collaborate forming a

whole.  

>

>

>> I think everybody can experience that s/he may concentrate her/his

>> thinking. Otherwise, nobody would be able to do by hand a simple addition

>> with many digits. If during the addition one thinks on other things, the

>> result will be wrong.

>

>

> Yes, that’s true. But for much of what we do, we don’t need attention

> to be focused on our thinking. In fact, we need it not to be - when there

> is an urgent need to act in the world, for example. 

>

>

We don't notice that we are observing our thinking, but in fact we are,

otherwise it will drift to other thoughts and mental representations.  

>

>

>

>>> I am not in control of what of what I am thinking now

>>

>>

>> Sure you are!!! Otherwise you would not have been able to express

>> coherent words and phrases!

>

>

> Not true! You underestimate the level of automaticity in human thought

> and action. 

>

>

I agree that much of our thinking and doing is not consciously decided

(thought about). Nevertheless, this does not mean that we could not think

and decide what to think and to do next. 

 

The movement of Mindfulness (I am not one of its adepts, but I find in

it many important aspects) tries to make our live more conscious. For

instance, when opening a water tap, pay attention to your movements and

the noise made by the water. Unfortunately, we run our lives mostly

unconsciously.

 

>

>

> No, I don’t. What I cannot do when I am not choosing what to write is

> write on other topics! I have chosen the topic, yes. I have at some time,

> consciously and unconsciously prepared by thinking about the topic. But

> when writing, I often don’t consciously choose what words to write, or

> even what sentences.  Conscious monitoring often, mostly, works at a

> high level - conscious monitoring of automated, unconscious processes,

> including in much thought and language.

>

>

It could be. But, again, this does not show that you could not write

consciously, thinking on every word and phrase we want to write. 

 

>

>

>> You mean that we sometimes speak using our memories, and not thinking

>> beforehand on what we are going to think. I think that, even then, we

>> must have some consciousness on what we say, otherwise our phrases will

>> have no sequence, no coherence.

>

>

>

> Some minimal consciousness, yes, but very little.

>

>

Great! This 'little' is sufficient to me. This means that 'something' in

you is producing that. My hypothesis is that this 'something' is not

physical, and is due to a non-physical 'member' we have in ourselves.

Animals don't have it.

>  

>

> The coherence comes from practice, like driving a manual car, or playing

> the piano.

>

>

Yes, these actions involve many unconscious actions. BTW, let me digress.

If a pianist would think on each finger and hand movement s/he would do,

the result would be paralysis! S/he would not be able to play! This means

that our movements have to be done mostly unconsciously; full

consciousness in our limbs produce paralysis. On the other hand,

consciousness of some of our body part, which is normally unconscious,

means pain. I had no idea where my leaver was, until I had hepatitis

about 40 years ago, with big leaver pains. 

>

>

> We are highly skilled performers of speech and text. And we always use

> memories when speaking - for example, we track the topic of a

> conversation, what has already been said (and by whom if we are in a

> social group) and even predict what can be a winning, or effective,

> conversation move - say in an argument. Both planning and memory. Most of

> this is done unconsciously. Our attentional capacity is too limited for

> it to be otherwise. 

>

>

´

> "Most of it" Look at your own expression!

>

>

>>> I’d be very interested to hear your theory.

>>

>>

>> Great! I'll expose it some other time. It's very simple. Maybe I've

>> solved a millennial problem: how is it possible that something that is

>> not physical, thus not having physical forces, can act upon the physical

>> world?

>

>

>

> Nobel Prize-winning, if that is the case. Now I am even more eager to

> hear it!

>

>

OK, I decided to write an essay on it. It will begin with the

mathematical definition of non-determinism using Turing Machines.  

 

 

As for the Nobel Prize, impossible, because the essay will have

non-materialist, spiritual ideas. Almost all scientists refuse to take

even notice of non-materialist ideas. Materialism is a dogma (as the Big

Bang and Darwinian Theory, or that in the future we will know everything,

with physical explanations). ZZZZ, materialism is the worst sickness in

the world, because it reduces humans and nature to what they are not. We

can see the horrible results of this way of thinking. 

 

 

With love, YYYY 

 

 

 

 

=====================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-09, 15:34 +0200 ZZZZ wrote:

 

> Hi YYYY,

>

>

>

>> but it’s not the same for us when it comes to mental arithmetic, which

>> is why we use particular symbolic representations for doing maths.

>

>

> Well, one could use the symbols and just make a syntactic manipulation on

> them (that's what a computer does). BTW, mathematics and logics is all a

> question of syntax, not of semantics. Any semantic we assign to them, as

> the 'interpretation' in mathematical logic, is in fact symbol

> manipulation using a set or fixed rules, the syntax.

>

>

Yes, of course. And we choose efficient and conventient symbolic

representations to do that work. Which is the work of doing maths.

>

>

> Well, it's impossible to do calculations using just Roman numerals.

> That's why before Fibonacci introduced the Arabic numeral into Europe in

> the beginning of the 13th century, the calculations were done with an

> abacus (see below). This was a big problem, because the calculations

> could not be registered and verified; just the input data and the result

> were written down in Roman numerals. Fibonacci's book Liber Abaci was a

> revolution in commerce, interest calculations etc.

>

>

Yes, of course. This shows the importance of a usable symbolism. The

symbols represent the numbers and operations on them.

>

>

>>> Why do they have the same meaning? Because we mentally work with their

>>> pure concepts, and not their representations.

>

>

>

>> No, you are mistaken. We work, mentally, with their representations. That

>> is how a brain can do maths.

>

>

> ZZZZ, you don't do calculations with the representations tre and fem. You

> do calculations with their concepts. Pure concepts do not have

> representations, and we work with them.

>

>

No, we don’t. The “work” is, as you said, syntactic. We do it, and

computers can do it.

>

>

>> If you time your mental work, you will see that the first one takes much

>> longer, if it’s even possible.

>

>

> Sure it is possible. Just not having to memorize the partial results, I

> could write them down as strings of letters. But I would be using their

> concepts in the same way as in your second form.

>

>

Why do you need to use what you call “their pure concepts”, since

mathematics and logics is all a question of syntax performed (on

symbols), not of semantics? Perhaps it’s just that I don’t know what

you mean by “pure concepts”.

 

>

>

> Don't tell me we have "stored" in our brains all possible representations

> of numbers!

>

>

I don’t see your point. We don’t need to. We are taught, and have

stored, the standard mathematical representations, which we use to do

maths - generatively. And we have generative language, which allows us to

represent numbers - and most other things - in words.

>

>

> But I have some hope of convincing you, because you admit that something

> is not physical, consciousness.

>

>

> I confess that before you told me this, I thought you were a materialist,

> physicalist (a much better and encompassing denomination than

> "atheist"!). But you are not, and this makes me very very happy.

>

>

I don’t know why you ever thought I was a materialist. I have

consistently said that beings and the world are both physical and

non-physical. But I’m happy if you are happy about this.

 

>

>

>> Something non-physical (in the generally understood sense of that word),

>> yes. I don’t know what you mean by “member” - I guess it just means

>> “part”, a non-physical part or component?

>>

 

> Yes. But the word 'part' has the connotation of partition (in the

> mathematical sense). I prefer 'member', thinking about our members and

> organs. They are somewhat independent, each one with its own

> characteristics, but at the same time they collaborate forming a whole. 

>

>

OK, then we agree - at least about human beings. As I have been saying

through our chats, human beings are both physical and non-physical. And

each needs the other.

 

>

>

>> You would need to state this theory for your argument above to have any

>> force.

>

>

> OK. You asked for it. A long time ago I wrote a small introduction to it;

> I am sure that I would have written differently nowadays, but the basics

> should be the same:

>

>

> https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/const1-eng.htm

>

>

Thank you! I will take a look. But I was hoping you could state it “in

a nutshell” - what Kristo calls (dismissively) an Executive Summary. Is

that possible?

>

>

> I agree that much of our thinking and doing is not consciously decided

> (thought about). Nevertheless, this does not mean that we could not think

> and decide what to think and to do next.

>

>

Not only not consciously decided, or thought about, but not consciously

done at all. BTW only self-consciousness involves thinking about our

thinking - we (and at least some animals) are often conscious without

being self-conscious.

>

>

> The movement of Mindfulness (I am not one of its adepts, but I find in it

> many important aspects) tries to make our live more conscious. For

> instance, when opening a water tap, pay attention to your movements and

> the noise made by the water. Unfortunately, we run our lives mostly

> unconsciously.

>

>

Or we are often conscious of different things than our present physical

environment and what is happening there. Mindfulness involves not being

so self-conscious, and in the process being more conscious of things like

physical events and noises in our environment. This is why mindfulness is

sometimes called “mindlessness” - mindless of self, but mindful of

the other, the environment.

>

>

>

>> No, I don’t. What I cannot do when I am not choosing what to write is

>> write on other topics! I have chosen the topic, yes. I have at some time,

>> consciously and unconsciously prepared by thinking about the topic. But

>> when writing, I often don’t consciously choose what words to write, or

>> even what sentences.  Conscious monitoring often, mostly, works at a high

>> level - conscious monitoring of automated, unconscious processes,

>> including in much thought and language.

>

>

> It could be. But, again, this does not show that you could not write

> consciously, thinking on every word and phrase we want to write.

>

>

But would the results be better - I don’t think so.

>

>

> Yes, these actions involve many unconscious actions. BTW, let me digress.

> If a pianist would think on each finger and hand movement s/he would do,

> the result would be paralysis! S/he would not be able to play! This means

> that our movements have to be done mostly unconsciously; full

> consciousness in our limbs produce paralysis.

>

>

Yes, quite, and my point is that fluent, creative writing is like that.

Writers and speakers or actors get paralyzed when they focus their

attention too much on what they are writing or speaking, and of

themselves doing it.

 

>

>

>> We are highly skilled performers of speech and text. And we always use

>> memories when speaking - for example, we track the topic of a

>> conversation, what has already been said (and by whom if we are in a

>> social group) and even predict what can be a winning, or effective,

>> conversation move - say in an argument. Both planning and memory. Most of

>> this is done unconsciously. Our attentional capacity is too limited for

>> it to be otherwise.

>

>

> "Most of it" Look at your own expression!

>

 

 

Er, yes - why? I have never denied that consciousness has a role and is a

necessary part (or as you put it “member”) of human beings.

 

>

>

>>> I’d be very interested to hear your theory.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Great! I'll expose it some other time. It's very simple. Maybe I've

>>> solved a millennial problem: how is it possible that something that is

>>> not physical, thus not having physical forces, can act upon the physical

>>> world?

>>

>> Nobel Prize-wiinning, if that is the case. Now I am even more eager to

>> hear it!

>

>

>

>

>OK, I decided to write an essay on it. It will begin with the

>mathematical definition of non-determinism using Turing Machines. 

>

>

> As for the Nobel Prize, impossible, because the essay will have

> non-materialist, spiritual ideas. Almost all scientists refuse to take

> even notice of non-materialist ideas. Materialism is a dogma (as the Big

> Bang and Darwinian Theory, or that in the future we will know everything,

> with physical explanations).

>

>

I can see why you won’t get that prize! But I look forward to the essay.

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 - ZZZZ

 

 

 

=====================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: YYYY

Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 2:38 PM

Subject: Re: Atheism - conceito

To: ZZZZ

 

 

 

HI, ZZZZ

 

I think we have a big difference, please confirm it.

 

 

It seems to me that you consider that concepts and their representations

are stored in the brain, that is, they are physical objects. This is not

a scientific fact. Furthermore, you consider that we have stored in our

brain syntactic rules of how to combine the stored numbers. This is also

not a scientific fact.

 

 

I consider that concepts are not physical, and they exist in the

non-physical Platonic world of ideas. Furthermore, I consider that we

have an organ that is able to perceive that world: our thinking.

Obviously, this perception is different than the one we make with our

senses.

 

 

Now I don't understand why you consider that we have something

non-physical, our consciousness, and you are not able to admit that there

are non-physical "objects" outside of ourselves. 

 

 

Now let me try another approach, as you could not accept that we work

with pure concepts of numbers, and not with their symbolic representation.

 

 

Take an ideal, geometric point, without dimensions. We have never seen

such a point, because it is impossible to draw one. So this is a pure

concept. But we work with it, e.g. when we see two straight line

segments intersecting each other (we also have never seen physically the

pure concept of a straight line), we immediately imagine that they

intersect in a point, the ideal point. In analytic geometry, we also deal

with pure concepts of points (represented by equations).

 

 

BTW, Euclides defined in his Elements,a point as that thing that cannot

be subdivided. This makes some sense, because he was thinking in a

physical division, and a point is not physical.

 

 

BTW-2, the geometric point and straight line are principles in geometry.

 

 

Maybe you could admit that the pure concept of a point cannot be stored

in our brain, as it has no representation? When we see a representation

such as ·  we immediately think on the geometric point, the pure

concept of a point. If this · is stored in the brain, it is not the

geometical point. 

 

 

BTW-3: this can be extended to any geometrical "object", such as

triangles, circumferences etc. (I didn't use a triangle because there are

pure concepts of different triangles, such as equilateral, isosceles etc.

and even colored ones.) But there is a pure concept of a general

triangle: a planar figure that is formed by 3 different 

non-parallel straight line segments).

 

 

Now I'll comment just a couple of things in your e-mail

 

 

> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 9:35 ZZZZ wrote:

>

>

> Hi YYYY,

>

>

> ...Why do you need to use what you call “their pure concepts”, since

> mathematics and logics is all a question of syntax performed (on

> symbols), not of semantics? Perhaps it’s just that I don’t know what

> you mean by “pure concepts”.

>

 

 

My point is that when we do mathematics and logics we are using pure

concepts, and not symbols stored in our brain. 

 

 

>> But I have some hope of convincing you, because you admit that something

>> is not physical, consciousness. 

>>

>>

>> I confess that before you told me this, I thought you were a materialist,

>> physicalist (a much better and encompassing denomination than

>> "atheist"!). But you are not, and this makes me very very happy.

>

>

> I don’t know why you ever thought I was a materialist.

>

>

I thought so when Kristo told me that you were an atheist. Many (most?)

so-called atheists do not just don't believe in supernatural beings, but

they consider that humans and the world are just physical. Somehow, they

are ashamed of calling themselves materialists or physicalists.

Fortunately, I never called you a materialist. 

>

>

> I have consistently said that beings and the world are both physical and

> non-physical. But I’m happy if you are happy about this.

>

>

I presume what is missing in you is that you don't admit that we have

non-physical organs and members. Your life is not physical, and is due to

a non-physical member that interacts with your body. That simple. This

member is of the same nature as the one each plant and animal has, albeit

ours is quite different and more complex (that's why our body is very

different and much more complex).

 

 

With love, YYYY 

 

 

 

 

 

=====================================

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-09, 16:32 -0400 YYYY wrote:

 

 

Hi, ZZZZ, 

 

 

It occurred to me to be more precise in the following. What I call "the

pure concept of a triangle" is what all triangles have in common: three

distinct vertices and three distinct sides which are line segments (in

non-Euclidian geometries, they could be curved when regarded in an

Euclidian sense).

 

 

[Best,]  YYYY. 

 

>

> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 2:38 YYYY wrote:

>

>

>

> HI, ZZZZ,

>

>

> I think we have a big difference, please confirm it.

>

>

> It seems to me that you consider that concepts and their representations

 

 

 

---------

 

 

Now I'll comment just a couple of things in your e-mail

 

>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 9:35 AM ZZZZ wrote:

>>

>>

>> Hi YYYY,

>>

>>

>> ...Why do you need to use what you call “their pure concepts”, since

….

 

With love, YYYY. 

 

 

 

 

 

=====================================

 

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 4:23 ZZZZ wrote:

 

 

HI YYYY,

 

 

> It seems to me that you consider that concepts and their representations

> are stored in the brain, that is, they are physical objects. This is not

> a scientific fact. Furthermore, you consider that we have stored in our

> brain syntactic rules of how to combine the stored numbers. This is also

> not a scientific fact.

 

 

Yes, we can destroy parts of the brain and lose concepts.

 

 We can - to some extent . measure the energy expended by the brain in

carrying out operations on these representations. These are not facts, of

course not, they are hypotheses.

 

 

> I consider that concepts are not physical, and they exist in the

> non-physical Platonic world of ideas. Furthermore, I consider that we

> have an organ that is able to perceive that world: our thinking.

>

 

 

I think our thinking operates on concepts that are stored in the brain.

 

We also perceive the world around us (and inside our bodies) via our

senses. Attention to these two, concepts and percepts, is in competition,

due to our limited conscious capacity.

 

 

> Now I don't understand why you consider that we have something

> non-physical, our consciousness, and you are not able to admit that there

> are non-physical "objects" outside of ourselves. 

>

>

Consciousness is non-physical, in the usual sense of the word. It is the

experiencer of thoughts and perceptions.

 

 

> Now let me try another approach, as you could not accept that we work

> with pure concepts of numbers, and not with their symbolic

> representation.

>

>

 

I can’t see what the “work” would consist of.

 

 

> Take an ideal, geometric point, without dimensions.

>

> We have never seen such a point, because it is impossible to draw one. > So this is a pure concept.

 

 

This is what imagination does - it allows us to experience (imagine)

things that don’t exist. And those that do, of course. 

 

 

 

> Maybe you could admit that the pure concept of a point cannot be

> stored

> in our brain, as it has no representation? When we see a representation

> such as ·  we immediately think on the geometric point, the pure

> concept of a point. If this · is stored in the brain, it is not the

> geometrical point. 

 

 

No, it’s the idea of the geometrical point.

 

In the same way you can explain in words what such a point is and

isn’t, so it can be represented in the brain. And, from that, it can be

imagined (experienced). Images can be of things that do not exist

physically, like points, spirits, or God. Can a computer work with the

idea of a geometrical point, or a triangle?

 

 

> I thought so when Kristo told me that you were an atheist. Many (most?)

> so-called atheists do not just don't believe in supernatural beings, but

> they consider that humans and the world are just physical. Somehow, they

> are ashamed of calling themselves materialists or physicalists.

> Fortunately, I never called you a materialist. 

 

 

No, that’s true, you didn't. Kristo must have inferred (not

unreasonably) that I am an atheist, from my denial of a purely spiritual

world, my denial of the existence of supernatural beings.

 

 

> I presume what is missing in you is that you don't admit that we have

> non-physical organs and members. Your life is not physical, and is due to

> a non-physical member that interacts with your body. That simple. This

> member is of the same nature as the one each plant and animal has, albeit

> ours is quite different and more complex (that's why our body is very

> different and much more complex).

>

 

I have said that we have a non-physical part and a physical part that

require each other for me to experience life.  

 

My life is not only physical, but it is physical.

 

Shoot me and it’s over.

Put me in a coma and it’s over (at least for while).

Without consciousness, my body cannot exerience life.

Without a body my consciousness does not exist.

I don’t know what an entirely non-physical organ would be,or do.

 

 

 

Best wishes, ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

==========================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-17, 14:26 -0400 YYYY wrote:

 

 

 

Ho, ZZZZ. 

 

 

Kristo asked if he was missing some of of our e-mails. I realized I was

owing an answer to the e-mail below. It happens that I am writing an

essay about my theory on how it is possible that something non-physical

(e.g. our supersensible "members") can act upon the physical world,

albeit not having any physical constituent that could exert some force

and without violating physical "laws" and conditions. Besides that,

preparing two new ppt presentations, answering lots of e-mails, throwing

lots of WhatsApp messages away, yesterday the whole day participating in

a presential conference on the internet in education (arghhhh!) etc. etc.

I'm overloaded ("atolado", in Portuguese, meaning "stuck in mud") with

work...

 

 

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 4:23 ZZZZ wrote:

>

>

> HI YYYY,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>> It seems to me that you consider that concepts and their representations

>> are stored in the brain, that is, they are physical objects. This is not

>> a scientific fact. Furthermore, you consider that we have stored in our

>> brain syntactic rules of how to combine the stored numbers. This is also

>> not a scientific fact.

>

> Yes, we can destroy parts of the brain and lose concepts.

>

 

 

This proves scientifically that those parts participate in the access to

the concepts. One cannot deduce from experiments that the concepts are

stored in the brain. 

 

 

 

> We can - to some extent . measure the energy expended by the brain in

> carrying out operations on these representations. These are not facts, of

> course not, they are hypotheses.

>

 

I would consider these as fact, e.g. as revealed by PET scans etc. But

they also don't prove that the energy is being used to store or retrieve

concepts. It proves that when we use concepts, that energy participates

in the process.  

 

 

>> I consider that concepts are not physical, and they exist in the

>> non-physical Platonic world of ideas. Furthermore, I consider that we

>> have an organ that is able to perceive that world: our thinking.

>>

>

>

> I think our thinking operates on concepts that are stored in the brain.

 

 

Nobody can prove that. They would have to show how they are stored and

how it is used. And as concepts, such as the pure concept of the number

two,are objective and universal (everbody reaches the same concept), I

think this is an evidence that concepts are not stored into the brain.

Nobody knows how the pure concept of two or even one of its symbolic

representations are stored in the brain, much less how our brain uses

them to do calculations.

 

 

> We also perceive the world around us (and inside our bodies) via our

> senses. Attention to these two, concepts and percepts, is in competition,

> due to our limited conscious capacity.

 

 

Here we have a very interesting point.  An object is perceived by us,

but its a concept is also perceived. Percepts and concepts are two

different things. Rudolf Steiner, in his seminal book "The philosophy of

freedom" (also published as "The philosophy of spiritual activity" --

there are various versions in English on the Internet; I'm

absolutely sure that a version in Swedish must exist) calls the

attention that it is our present organization that separates the object,

perceived as a percept through our senses, and its concept, perceived by

our thinking. He says that the object and its concept (for insgtance, a

certain door and the concept of 'door') make the whole reality, and he

calls this a monism. Our thinking completes the cognition when it reaches

the correct concept of an object we perceive. As we can reach concepts,

which are not physical, with our thinking, this means that our thinking

has at least some component that is not physical. That's why Steiner gave

the name with "spiritual activity" for the title of the first English

translation of the book mentioned above.

 

 

>>

>> Now I don't understand why you consider that we have something

>> non-physical, our consciousness, and you are not able to admit that there

>> are non-physical "objects" outside of ourselves. 

>

>

>

> Consciousness is non-physical, in the usual sense of the word. It is the

> experiencer of thoughts and perceptions.

 

 

Look, ZZZZ, there are 4 realms in nature: minerals, plants, animals and

humans. I'm departing from the (in my opinion, wrong) idea that there are

only three realms, because humans are too different from animals. One may

consider that the essential differences are due to different members in

each realm. You have already the main prerequisite for this: you consider

that there are non-physical phenomena in the world. The only thing you

need is making the hypothesis that your "experiencer" is a "member" of

our non-physical constitution. Animals have this member, albeit not so

complex as ours. Plants and minerals don't have it. You should not think

that this "member" is similar to our physical members and organs. In the

spiritual world, there is no space, to begin with. 

 

 

>> Now let me try another approach, as you could not accept that we work

>> with pure concepts of numbers, and not with their symbolic

>> representation.

>>

>

>

> I can’t see what the “work” would consist of.

 

 

We use the concepts, we mentally "work" with them. It's not a physical

work, albeit having physical counterparts which are consequences of our

non-physical activities. 

 

 

>> Take an ideal, geometric point, without dimensions.

>> We have never seen such a point, because it is impossible to draw one. So

>> this is a pure concept.

>

>

> This is what imagination does - it allows us to experience (imagine)

> things that don’t exist. And those that do, of course. 

>

 

 

What you call "imagination", when referring to objects I call

perceiving -- with our thinking -- the pure concepts. 

 

 

>> Maybe you could admit that the pure concept of a point cannot be stored

>> in our brain, as it has no representation? When we see a representation

>> such as ·  we immediately think on the geometric point, the pure

>> concept of a point. If this · is stored in the brain, it is not the

>> geometical point. 

>

>

> No, it’s the idea of the geometrical point.

>

 

 

Exactly! And ideas are not physical. Just make this hypothesis, which

doesn't contradict scientific knowledge, and you will make an

enormous step. 

 

 

> In the same way you can explain in words what such a point is and

> isn’t, so it can be represented in the brain. And, from that, it can be

> imagined (experienced). Images can be of things that do not exist

> physically, like points, spirits, or God. Can a computer work with the

> idea of a geometrical point, or a triangle?

 

 

No. We have the experience of seeing representations of points, but we

don't have the experience of seeing representations of spirits or God.

When renaissance painters painted spiritual beings, they represented them

as humans with wings. This was a tradition. Spiritual beings don't have

bodies like ourselves, much less wings.

 

 

>> I thought so when Kristo told me that you were an atheist. Many (most?)

>> so-called atheists do not just don't believe in supernatural beings, but

>> they consider that humans and the world are just physical. Somehow, they

>> are ashamed of calling themselves materialists or physicalists.

>> Fortunately, I never called you a materialist.

>

>

> No, that’s true, you didn't. Kristo must have inferred (not

> unreasonably) that I am an atheist, from my denial of a purely spiritual

> world, my denial of the existence of supernatural beings.

>

 

 

You are an interesting species. Someone that makes (ideally) the

hypothesis that there are no "beings" who are purely spiritual, but that

there are spiritual phenomena in the world.

 

I think your problem is that you don't know of a theory that makes clear

concepts of spiritual phenomena and beings.  Maybe you read, see and

hear how the churches, synagogues, moshes and ashrams deal with them,

and cannot agree with them. This is obvious: they do not express

themselves in concepts, but in ancient symbols, images, but don't

understand them. Moreover, they are dogmatic, and this does not conform

with our present search for freedom and understanding. 

 

 

>> I presume what is missing in you is that you don't admit that we have

>> non-physical organs and members. Your life is not physical, and is due to

>> a non-physical member that interacts with your body. That simple. This

>> member is of the same nature as the one each plant and animal has, albeit

>> ours is quite different and more complex (that's why our body is very

>> different and much more complex).

>>

 

 

Sorry, I should have said "your life is not just physical". But you agree

with it, because we have consciousness, right? 

 

 

> I have said that we have a non-physical part and a physical part that

> require each other for me to experience life.  

>

 

 

Great!

 

 

> My life is not only physical, but it is physical.

>

 

 

Is partly physical.

 

 

> Shoot me and it’s over.

 

 

Three of your members have departed from your body, which is given to

nature and immediately starts to decompose. Life is a constant battle

against death.  

 

 

> Put me in a coma and it’s over (at least for while).

 

 

Your vital parts continue to work. In terms of consciousness, you are

reduced to a plant. " Higher" than a mineral, though.

 

 

> Without consciousness, my body cannot exerience life.

 

 

Great! It cannot experience!!! What makes us experience something, having

consciousness of this something, is not that gives us life. This

something is one of our non-physical "members" and is not present in

plants, and also not present when we are in deep sleep. 

 

 

> Without a body my consciousness does not exist.

 

 

Look at a mirror. You see something you never do: you face. Now break the

mirror. You cannot see yourself anymore. Does this mean that you don't

exist? Our physical body functions as a mirror of our sensations,

feelings and thinking to our consciousness. That's why the physical body

is so important. It is a temple for our non-physical members. Interesting

enough, this was said by none other than the Christ himself:

 

John 2:19-21:

 

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three

days I will raise it up.

 

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building,

and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

 

21 But he spoke of the temple of his body.

 

 

> I don’t know what an entirely non-physical organ would be,or do.

>

 

 

Probably because you try to imagine it in physical form. 

 

 

With love, YYYY. 

 

 

 

 

=====================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-20, 08:29 +0200 ZZZZ wrote:

 

Hi YYYY,

 

 

Thanks for your latest in the conceito thread. I haven’t had a chance

to read it yet. In the same spirit, and stimulated by Kristo’s query,

here’s a reply to your last in this thread (which Krosto may not have

seen?). I wrote this when I got your mail, but didn’t sent it then.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi YYYY,

 

 

 

 

> On 9 Aug 2022, at 03:18  YYYY wrote:

>

>

> Saying that we are animals degrade the image we should have of ourselves,

> and upgrades the image we should have of animals.

>

 

 

No, I don’t think so. We are clearly animals, but are a separate

species. We do have some, not that many, physical differences from our

nearest relatives - chimpanzees - who share 98.5 percent of our DNA

sequences.

 

 

“Animals” covers such a huge range, from one-celled blobs with a

flagellum, to us. A mollusc is more different from a whale than we are

from a gorilla. But we are all animals. To think otherwise is silly and

wrong.

 

 

> BTW, the Nazis treated people as animals.

 

 

Did they? What kind of animals? Hitler was fond of pets and a vegetarian.

No, they treated some people (Jews mostly) as inferior people, whereas

Germans were the master race. This is what group cults  sometimes do,

they downgrade anyone who is not like them - whites versus blacks, men

versus women, heterosexuals versus gays, protestants versus catholics -

and then treat them inhumanely, convincing themselves that what they do

is OK, necessary even, because the other is bad or evil, or just less

human because different.

Sometimes people say the Nazis behaved like animals, but that’s not

true either.

 

 

> This chain of evolution is a speculation, and not a scientific fact.

>

 

 

Yes, but there are more than enough facts to broadly accept it, given

that we (or I, at least) don’t know of any better account of the origin

of species, etc. The evidence for some version of evolution is

overwhelming.

 

 

> Nobody was there to examine what was happening. In particular, Richard

> Dawkins notwithstanding, neo-Darwininan evolution is based on two random

> effects: random mutations and random encounters leading to natural

> selection. One has to have an extremely simplistic mind to assume that

> the marvel and wisdom in nature were due to random phenomena.

 

 

I know it is hard for some to accept that random variation can lead to

such diverse and marvellous outcomes, but I don’t see why not - or what

else could. This does not diminish the wonder and wonderfulness of what

is out there - in life. If anything, it enhances it.

 

 

> Calling a human a rational animal is absurd.

 

 

Seems rational to me, given our physicality, feeling, drives and

reaction, and heredity. Not to see that humans are a kind of animal makes

no sense. But then we are not always rational animals - sometime we are

irrational ones.

 

 

>

>> But “rational animal” is a pretty accurate description of humans.

>

> 

> No sir. We have many more differences to animals than just our

> rationality.

 

 

It depends what animals you mean, all species have specific

characteristics - that’s what makes them a species. We don’t differ

much from chimpanzees, though we are not much like molluscs.

 

But we are clearly repeating ourselves. To me we are obviously a kind of

animal, to you we are clearly not. I don’t think we can get further

with this.

 

 

 

>> The story you believe in - about the divinity - is, as far as I

>> understand it, not so very untypical of the stories people create and

>> tell themselves and others to avoid accepting mortality. As you said, we

>> strive throughout our lives to avoid death, as do all creatures. For a

>> thinking animal like us, it’s understandable to try to find a

>> “loop-hole” to escape from death. Hence the religious stories.

>

>

> ZZZZ, that's a phantasy, a speculation. You cannot prove it. I may make

> another hypothesis: in very ancient times, people had organs that

> permitted them to observe the spiritual realm. But they were not able to

> describe conceptually their perceptions, that's why they created myths,

> images..

 

 

To me, the idea of a divinity, a non-physical being, is a fantasy, a

speculation, and you cannot prove it.

 

I don’t think these ancient people had non-physical organs - and I

don’t know what a non-physical organ would be or do, do you? - but as i

said before, they could perceive differently than we can. I think

that’s interesting and think it can be recaptured, for example with

psychedelic substances (which are part of some religious ceremonies).

 

 

>> But, as far as I can see, there is no escape - and that’s OK. What

>> would come after death? Life after death - i.e life after life?

>> 

>

> I personally knew 3 people that had near-death experiences.

>

 

 

That’s unusually many. But in extreme conditions people can have very

strange perceptions - that are often called hallucinations. And most

people who go near to death do not report any such experiences.

 

 

 

>> And then death again - that leads nowhere. Or no death? But life without

>> death is not life - death is part and parcel of the true meaning of life,

>> which is in the living against the backdrop of inevitable death.

>

>

> I find it funny that the Christian churches speak about a soul that

> subsists after death. But why on hell according to them the soul cannot

> return in another body? There was an important reason that the Catholic

> Church eliminated the concept of reincarnation (revived by Kardec in the

> 18th century). Plato had it, in his dialogue Phaedrus. It's a central

> part of Buddhism (albeit Buddhists having no idea what reincarnates).

> BTW, my 4th non-physical at the beginning is what reincarnates.

 

 

Obviously I don’t think anyone reincarnates. Except, my consciousness

ends when I do, but a baby is born with consciousness. is it mine? Not in

any meaningful sense as far as I can see.

 

 

> One final observation, ZZZZ. We both accept all scientific facts. And I

> understand why you accept some scientific judgements that I don't. But my

> world view is much more extensive, that is, my worldview is a proper

> superset of yours.

 

 

Get over yourself, YYYY! “Mine is bigger than yours” arguments are

best left to the school playground.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 - ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

======================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-20, 13:44 +0200  ZZZZ wrote:

 

Hi YYYY,

 

 

> On 17 Aug 2022, at 20:26, YYYY wrote:

>

>

>>> It seems to me that you consider that concepts and their representations

>>> are stored in the brain, that is, they are physical objects. This is not

>>> a scientific fact. Furthermore, you consider that we have stored in our

>>> brain syntactic rules of how to combine the stored numbers. This is also

>>> not a scientific fact.

>>

>>

>> Yes, we can destroy parts of the brain and lose concepts.

>

>

> This proves scientifically that those parts participate in the access to

> the concepts. One cannot deduce from experiments that the concepts are

> stored in the brain.

 

 

That would be the most parsimonious conclusion. Where do you think they

are stored?

 

 

>> We can - to some extent . measure the energy expended by the brain in

>> carrying out operations on these representations. These are not facts, of

>> course not, they are hypotheses.

>

>

>

> I would consider these as fact, e.g. as revealed by PET scans etc. But

> they also don't prove that the energy is being used to store or retrieve

> concepts. It proves that when we use concepts, that energy participates

> in the process.

 

 

Participates in the process? Why assume part of the process is done - in

some mysterious way - somewhere (unspecified) else?

 

 

>>> I consider that concepts are not physical, and they exist in the

>>> non-physical Platonic world of ideas. Furthermore, I consider that we

>>> have an organ that is able to perceive that world: our thinking.

>>

>>

>> I think our thinking operates on concepts that are stored in the brain.

>

> 

> Nobody can prove that. They would have to show how they are stored and

> how it is used. And as concepts, such as the pure concept of the number

> two,are objective and universal (everbody reaches the same concept), I

> think this is an evidence that concepts are not stored into the brain.

> Nobody knows how the pure concept of two or even one of its symbolic

> representations are stored in the brain, much less how our brain uses

> them to do calculations.

 

 

I don’t see why you think that this shows that representations of

numbers are not stored in the brain. If I tell you (orally) my phone

number, you will use your brain to store it till you can write it down or

memorise it more permanently - in your brain. It can be removed from your

brain, physically, by a number of (admittedly not very accurate)

procedures.

 

 

>> We also perceive the world around us (and inside our bodies) via our

>> senses. Attention to these two, concepts and percepts, is in competition,

>> due to our limited conscious capacity.

>

>

>

>

> Here we have a very interesting point.  An object is perceived by us, but

> its a concept is also perceived. Percepts and concepts are two different

> things.

>

 

 

Yes, that’s what I was saying.

 

 

>>> Now I don't understand why you consider that we have something

>>> non-physical, our consciousness, and you are not able to admit that

>>> there are non-physical "objects" outside of ourselves.

>>

>>

>> Consciousness is non-physical, in the usual sense of the word. It is the

>> experiencer of thoughts and perceptions.

>

> 

> Look, ZZZZ, there are 4 realms in nature: minerals, plants, animals and

> humans. I'm departing from the (in my opinion, wrong) idea that there are

> only three realms, because humans are too different from animals. One may

> consider that the essential differences are due to different members in

> each realm. You have already the main prerequisite for this: you consider

> that there are non-physical phenomena in the world. The only thing you

> need is making the hypothesis that your "experiencer" is a "member" of

> our non-physical constitution. Animals have this member, albeit not so

> complex as ours. Plants and minerals don't have it. You should not think

> that this "member" is similar to our physical members and organs. In the

> spiritual world, there is no space, to begin with.

>

 

 

We are conscious, but we are physical beings - animals in fact. My

consciousness does not exist outside of that.

 

 

>>> Now let me try another approach, as you could not accept that we work

>>> with pure concepts of numbers, and not with their symbolic

>>> representation.

>>

>>

>>

>> I can’t see what the “work” would consist of.

>

>

>

> We use the concepts, we mentally "work" with them. It's not a physical

> work, albeit having physical counterparts which are consequences of our

> non-physical activities.

>

 

 

But mental work is physical work, in that it uses our bodily energy.

Doing maths is tiring, because we do it with our physical brains and use

energy for that - and this can be measured.

 

 

>>> Take an ideal, geometric point, without dimensions.

>>> We have never seen such a point, because it is impossible to draw one.

>>> So this is a pure concept.

>>

>>

>> This is what imagination does - it allows us to experience (imagine)

>> things that don’t exist. And those that do, of course.

>

>

> What you call "imagination", when referring to objects I call perceiving

> -- with our thinking -- the pure concepts.

 

 

What I mean by imagination is the realisation of a concept as an object

in mind - say I imagine a pink elephant. This is not perceiving.

 

 

>>> Maybe you could admit that the pure concept of a point cannot be stored

>>> in our brain, as it has no representation? When we see a representation

>>> such as ·  we immediately think on the geometric point, the pure

>>> concept of a point. If this · is stored in the brain, it is not the

>>> geometical point.

>>

>>

>>

>> No, it’s the idea of the geometrical point.

>

>

>

> Exactly! And ideas are not physical. Just make this hypothesis, which

> doesn't contradict scientific knowledge, and you will make an enormous

> step.

>

 

 

I never thought or said that ideas are physical. But representations of

them are. And they are what we work with.

 

 

>> In the same way you can explain in words what such a point is and

>> isn’t, so it can be represented in the brain. And, from that, it can be

>> imagined (experienced). Images can be of things that do not exist

>> physically, like points, spirits, or God. Can a computer work with the

>> idea of a geometrical point, or a triangle?

>

>

>

> No. We have the experience of seeing representations of points, but we

> don't have the experience of seeing representations of spirits or God.

 

 

 

I don’t understand you.

 

 

 

>>> I thought so when Kristo told me that you were an atheist. Many (most?)

>>> so-called atheists do not just don't believe in supernatural beings, but

>>> they consider that humans and the world are just physical. Somehow, they

>>> are ashamed of calling themselves materialists or physicalists.

>>> Fortunately, I never called you a materialist.

>>

>>

>>

>> No, that’s true, you didn't. Kristo must have inferred (not

>> unreasonably) that I am an atheist, from my denial of a purely spiritual

>> world, my denial of the existence of supernatural beings.

>

>

>

> You are an interesting species. Someone that makes (ideally) the

> hypothesis that there are no "beings" who are purely spiritual, but that

> there are spiritual phenomena in the world.

>

 

 

Well, there are conscious beings in the world, who are both physical and

spiritual. I don’t see any reason to believe in purely spiritual beings.

 

 

>> I have said that we have a non-physical part and a physical part that

>> require each other for me to experience life. 

>

>

> Great!

>  

>> My life is not only physical, but it is physical.

>>

>

>

>

> Is partly physical.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

>> Shoot me and it’s over.

>>

>

> Life is a constant battle against death.

 

 

Indeed it is; because when death comes, it’s over.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

- ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-20, 09:53 -0400 YYYY wrote:

 

 

 

Hi, ZZZZ, 

 

 

> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 2:30 ZZZZ wrote:

>

>

> Hi YYYY,

>

>

> Thanks for your latest in the conceito thread. I haven’t had a chance

> to read it yet. In the same spirit, and stimulated by Kristo’s query,

> here’s a reply to your last in this thread (which Kristo may not have

> seen?). I wrote this when I got your mail, but didn’t sent it then.

>

>

> Hi YYYY,

> 

>> On 9 Aug 2022, at 03:18, YYYY wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>> Saying that we are animals degrade the image we should have of ourselves,

>> and upgrades the image we should have of animals. 

>

>

> No, I don’t think so. We are clearly animals, but are a separate

> species.

 

 

In these case, you should say that animas are clearly plants, but a

separate species. Animals have much in common with plants, as I have

already described. 

 

 

> We do have some, not that many, physical differences from our nearest

> relatives - chimpanzees - who share 98.5 percent of our DNA sequences. 

 

 

This small difference in the DNA shows very clearly that it is not the

DNA that determines what we are! Our physical differences are absolutely

essential. Without them we would be ... animals. But there are not just

physical differences. Animals don't have self-consciousness, don't have

thinking, don't use concepts, don't have speaking, have no free will,

cannot exercise altruistic love, have no destiny, and are only subjected

to their inheritance and the influence of the environment. Who is and has

been changing the world (much more for bad ten for good): ourselves or

animals? Mos important: If you kill an animal, its species will continue

to exist. If you kill a human, never more will its highest

characteristics subsist. In this sense, each human is similar to a whole

animal species.

 

 

> “Animals” covers such a huge range, from one-celled blobs with a

> flagellum, to us. A mollusc is more different from a whale than we are

> from a gorilla. But we are all animals. To think otherwise is silly and

> wrong.

 

 

When comparing different realms, one should use the most advanced

specimens of that realm. Forget about living beings that are transitions.

Concentrate on the highest developed ones. In terms of animals,

concentrate on the differences of mammals to us.  

 

 

>> BTW, the Nazis treated people as animals.

>

>

> Did they? What kind of animals? Hitler was fond of pets and a vegetarian.

 

 

I said "people"!

 

 

> No, they treated some people (Jews mostly) as inferior people, whereas

> Germans were the master race.

 

 

And treated Jews and Roma and disabled as animals, transporting them in

trains designed to transport animals, caged them etc.

 

 

> This is what group cults  sometimes do, they downgrade anyone who is not

> like them

 

 

Agreed. I think they are materialists. Speaking about God each second

word doesn't make a person a spiritualist. This depends on her/his way of

thinking. Thinking only in a physical, material way, is what makes a

person a materialist.

 

 

> - whites versus blacks, men versus women, heterosexuals versus gays,

> protestants versus catholics - and then treat them inhumanely,

 

 

Exactly, they treated them as animals.

 

 

> convincing themselves that what they do is OK, necessary even, because

> the other is bad or evil, or just less human

>

 

 

Exactly. Less human = animal (in extreme cases, a plant).

 

 

> because different.

> Sometimes people say the Nazis behaved like animals, but that’s not

> true either.

 

 

In some sense they behaved like animals. Animals have no compassion.

Hitler had an extremely developed social sense, but had no compassion.  

 

 

>>

>> This chain of evolution is a speculation, and not a scientific fact. 

>>

>

>

> Yes, but there are more than enough facts to broadly accept it, given

> that we (or I, at least) don’t know of any better account of the origin

> of species, etc. The evidence for some version of evolution is

> overwhelming.

>

 

 

YOU don't know. I know. But don't ask me for physical descriptions of

this theory. It's not a physical theory. But I can point to some physical

indications: the lost nodes in the evolution tree, different evolution

trees, some of our characteristics that have no evolutionary

explanation, like our speech and lack of fur, leather and scales in our

skin, the fact that I already mentioned: examining all animals, it is

impossible to infer our bodies and other characteristics. 

 

 

There is another very important point. Imagine a goat. Now imagine its

neck and legs growing until it reaches the present giraffe. There should

be an enormous amount of converging mutations for such a change.

Researches (I think I can find some reference, I have a book by a

biologist on this) have demonstrated that in higher animals just two

converging mutations would probabilistically take hundreds of millions

of years. 

 

 

Human fossils appeared last in evolution, but this does not mean that

humans did not exist before in another physical form which was not so

dense and did not leave fossils. 

 

 

>> Nobody was there to examine what was happening. In particular, Richard

>> Dawkins notwithstanding, neo-Darwininan evolution is based on two random

>> effects: random mutations and random encounters leading to natural

>> selection. One has to have an extremely simplistic mind to assume that

>> the marvel and wisdom in nature were due to random phenomena.

>

> I know it is hard for some to accept that random variation can lead to

> such diverse and marvellous outcomes, but I don’t see why not - or what

> else could. This does not diminish the wonder and wonderfulness of what

> is out there - in life. If anything, it enhances it. 

 

 

Yes, it shows that evolution was not due to random mutations and natural

selection. 

 

 

>> Calling a human a rational animal is absurd.

>>

>

> Seems rational to me, given our physicality, feeling, drives and

> reaction, and heredity. Not to see that humans are a kind of animal makes

> no sense.

>

 

 

If you just look at the similarities, you don't see the differences.

That's what Desmond Morris did in his The naked ape. I Dutch doctor,

L.F.C. Mees, wrote a counterpart book, Tha dressed angel:

 

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/136511.The_Dressed_Angel

 

 

> But then we are not always rational animals - sometime we are irrational

> ones.

 

 

Yes, almost. Even a person who thinks very little before acting

constantly uses his/her thinking. For exemple, seeing a tree, this person

immediately thinks: "This is a tree". S/he has used her/his thinking to

reach the concept of the object. 

 

 

>>> But “rational animal” is a pretty accurate description of humans.

>>>

>> 

>> No sir. We have many more differences to animals than just our

>> rationality.

>

>

> It depends what animals you mean, all species have specific

> characteristics - that’s what makes them a species. We don’t differ

> much from chimpanzees, though we are not much like molluscs.

 

 

 

We differ enormously from chimpanzees. To begin with, they don't have a

vertebral column with a double S, which permits us to stay erect. They

have no voice organs. They have fur. Etc. ad nauseam. 

 

 

> But we are clearly repeating ourselves. To me we are obviously a kind of

> animal, to you we are clearly not. I don’t think we can get further

> with this.

>

 

 

OK. In my opinion, you degrade humans when you concentrate on their

similarities with animals.  

 

 

 

> To me, the idea of a divinity, a non-physical being, is a fantasy, a

> speculation, and you cannot prove it.

>

 

 

ZZZZ, you are certainly asking for a physical proof. It is not possible

to physically prove that a non-physical "thing" or being exists. But if

we regard ourselves, we find many evidences that we are not just purely

physical. Free will is one of them. From matter no free will can arise.

But you have already admitted one non-physical capacity: consciousness.

It has to be experienced, it cannot be proved materially, 

 

 

 

> I don’t think these ancient people had non-physical organs - and I

> don’t know what a non-physical organ would be or do, do you?

>

 

 

Yes, consciousness is due to a non-physical member or organ.

 

 

>  - but as i said before, they could perceive differently than we can. I

> think that’s interesting and think it can be recaptured, for example

> with psychedelic substances (which are part of some religious ceremonies).

 

 

Yes, it affects the connection between our supersensible members and our

physical body.

 

 

 

>>> But, as far as I can see, there is no escape - and that’s OK. What

>>> would come after death? Life after death - i.e life after life? 

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> I personally knew 3 people that had near-death experiences. 

>

> That’s unusually many. But in extreme conditions people can have very

> strange perceptions - that are often called hallucinations.

 

 

Yes, this is the materialistic non-explanation to supersensible

phenomena. 

 

 

> And most people who go near to death do not report any such experiences.

>

 

 

Yes. You should read George Ritchie's  Return from tomorrow. Hear what

he says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iqh8XB5k2w

 

 

> Obviously I don’t think anyone reincarnates. Except, my consciousness

> ends when I do, but a baby is born with consciousness. is it mine? Not in

> any meaningful sense as far as I can see.

 

 

Sorry, Kardec lived in the 19th century, interestingly enough, parallel

to Darwin. One materialist, the other spiritualist.  

 

You don't think on reincarnation because you don't know of a good theory

explaining it and giving examples in history. It exists. 

 

It is a necessity that we are reborn without normally remembering the

previous life. Otherwise, we would have no freedom. 

 

 

>> One final observation, ZZZZ. We both accept all scientific facts. And I

>> understand why you accept some scientific judgements that I don't. But

>> my world view is much more extensive, that is, my worldview is a proper

>> superset of yours.

>

>

>

> Get over yourself, YYYY! “Mine is bigger than yours” arguments are

> best left to the school playground.

 

 

If someone admits something, and another person admits tit but extends it

and admits somewhat more that the former one does not admit, than the

second person admits a proper superset than the former. I give an

example. Suppose someone admites Newton's theory of gravitation, but

doesn't admit relativity theory. Another person who admits both admits a

proper superset of the former. Isn't that clear? It's a fact and does not

involve value. 

 

 

With love, YYYY.

 

 

 

 

=========================================

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-20, 16:12 +0200 ZZZZ wrote:

 

Hi YYYY,

 

 

> On 20 Aug 2022, at 15:53 YYYY> wrote:

>

> In these case, you should say that animas are clearly plants, but a

> separate species. Animals have much in common with plants, as I have

> already described.

 

 

Some simple animals have something in common with some plants. More

developed animals, vertebrates say (including us), don’t have much in

common with plants.

 

 

> This small difference in the DNA shows very clearly that it is not the

> DNA that determines what we are! Our physical differences are absolutely

> essential. Without them we would be ... animals. But there are not just

> physical differences. Animals don't have self-consciousness, don't have

> thinking, don't use concepts, don't have speaking, have no free will,

> cannot exercise altruistic love, have no destiny, and are only subjected

> to their inheritance and the influence of the environment.

>

> Who is and has been changing the world (much more for bad ten for good):

> ourselves or animals?

 

 

Yes, humans are rational in a way that animals in general are not -

though some have a degree of rationality. I agreed with this before. We

are also irrational, believing in things that have no valid basis in

reason, which animals don’t. I don’t think we have such a thing as

destiny, nor do animals.

 

 

> Most important: If you kill an animal, its species will continue to exist.

> If you kill a human, never more will its highest characteristics subsist.

> In this sense, each human is similar to a whole animal species.

>

 

 

 I don’t know what you mean by highest characteristics subsisting. We

have culture and inheritance, I pass my ideas on and my genes. And if you

kill a human, its species will continue to exist.

 

 

>> BTW, the Nazis treated people as animals.

>>

>>

>>

>> Did they? What kind of animals? Hitler was fond of pets and a

>> vegetarian.

>>

>

>

>

> I said "people”!

 

 

You said they treated them as (they or we would treat) animals.

 

 

>> No, they treated some people (Jews mostly) as inferior people, whereas

>> Germans were the master race.

>

>

> And treated Jews and Roma and disabled as animals, transporting them in

> trains designed to transport animals, caged them etc.

 

 

We do treat animals in that way sometimes, so that we can eat them. Or as

pets. We don’t villify them, or hate them,

 

 

>> This is what group cults  sometimes do, they downgrade anyone who is not

>> like them

>>

> 

> Agreed. I think they are materialists. Speaking about God each second

> word doesn't make a person a spiritualist. This depends on her/his way of

> thinking. Thinking only in a physical, material way, is what makes a

> person a materialist.

 

 

They believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, in a quasi-mystical

way. But, OK, people who don’t consider the experienced lives of others

important are not spiritual in any meanigful sense. And this applies to

animals too - considering their experienced lives.

 

 

>> - whites versus blacks, men versus women, heterosexuals versus gays,

>> protestants versus catholics - and then treat them inhumanely,

>>

>

> Exactly, they treated them as animals.

>

 

 

It’s possible to treat animals more or less humanely. They treated them

as some people treat some kinds of animals - as if their experienced

lives don’t matter.

 

 

>> convincing themselves that what they do is OK, necessary even, because

>> the other is bad or evil, or just less human

>>

> 

> Exactly. Less human = animal (in extreme cases, a plant).

>

 

 

Not really. Less human humans. They would have treated animals better.

 

 

>> because different.

>> Sometimes people say the Nazis behaved like animals, but that’s not

>> true either.

>>

>

>

>

> In some sense they behaved like animals. Animals have no compassion.

> Hitler had an extremely developed social sense, but had no compassion. 

 

 

Or cruelty. Animals do not behave like nazis. And vice versa.

 

 

>>> This chain of evolution is a speculation, and not a scientific fact.

>>

>>

>> Yes, but there are more than enough facts to broadly accept it, given

>> that we (or I, at least) don’t know of any better account of the origin

>> of species, etc. The evidence for some version of evolution is

>> overwhelming.

>

> 

> YOU don't know. I know. But don't ask me for physical descriptions of

> this theory. It's not a physical theory.

>

 

 

What is it? And what do your mean by physical description?

 

 

> Human fossils appeared last in evolution, but this does not mean that

> humans did not exist before in another physical form which was not so

> dense and did not leave fossils.

>

 

 

It doesn’t mean they did, so why assume they did, when there is no

evidence for it?

 

 

>> But then we are not always rational animals - sometime we are irrational

>> ones.

>>

>

>

> Yes, almost. Even a person who thinks very little before acting

> constantly uses his/her thinking. For exemple, seeing a tree, this person

> immediately thinks: "This is a tree". S/he has used her/his thinking to

> reach the concept of the object.

 

 

Usually we don’t do that - we don’t think “I am looking at this and

it is a tree”. We just avoid walking into it, as any animal would. We

open doors and go through without thinking “this is a door”. If there

were a fire, though, we might well think about doors as exits.

 

 

>>>> But “rational animal” is a pretty accurate description of humans.

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> No sir. We have many more differences to animals than just our

>>> rationality.

>>

>>

>>

>> It depends what animals you mean, all species have specific

>> characteristics - that’s what makes them a species. We don’t differ

>> much from chimpanzees, though we are not much like molluscs.

>

>

> We differ enormously from chimpanzees. To begin with, they don't have a

> vertebral column with a double S, which permits us to stay erect. They

> have no voice organs. They have fur. Etc. ad nauseam.

>

 

 

Not quite ad nauseam, surely? The differences are relative. We are very

like chimps morphogenetically. Some people are quite hairy. And chimps

are quite smart.

 

 

>> But we are clearly repeating ourselves. To me we are obviously a kind of

>> animal, to you we are clearly not. I don’t think we can get further

>> with this.

>>

>

>

> OK. In my opinion, you degrade humans when you concentrate on their

> similarities with animals.

>

 

 

Clearly, I disagree. We are very similar - we are animals - and this is

very important to understand people, their experiences and their

behaviour - which we need to do to treat them humanely. But we are

different from animals - we are rational, and irrational (irrational does

not mean an absence of rationality).

 

 

>> To me, the idea of a divinity, a non-physical being, is a fantasy, a

>> speculation, and you cannot prove it.

>>

>

>

> ZZZZ, you are certainly asking for a physical proof. It is not possible

> to physically prove that a non-physical "thing" or being exists.

 

 

If this non-physical being can affect physical things, then there should

be evidence of physical effects. If it can’t, why does it matter?

 

 

> But if we regard ourselves, we find many evidences that we are not just

> purely physical. Free will is one of them. From matter no free will can

> arise. But you have already admitted one non-physical capacity:

> consciousness. It has to be experienced, it cannot be proved materially,

>

 

 

Yes, agreed. But this doesn’t apply to a non-physical being . Only to

ourselves, our own experience.  I never said we were purely physical.

 

 

>> I don’t think these ancient people had non-physical organs - and I

>> don’t know what a non-physical organ would be or do, do you?

>

>

> Yes, consciousness is due to a non-physical member or organ.

 

 

 

I agree that we are conscious, sometimes, but I don’t understand this

“organ”.

 

 

>>  - but as i said before, they could perceive differently than we can. I

>> think that’s interesting and think it can be recaptured, for example

>> with psychedelic substances (which are part of some religious

>> ceremonies).

>>

>

> Yes, it affects the connection between our supersensible members and our

> physical body.

>

 

 

It affects how we perceive, experience, what is in the world (of which we

area  part). Maybe that’s what you mean? The world doesn’t change,

but we perceive it differently.

 

 

>>>> But, as far as I can see, there is no escape - and that’s OK. What

>>>> would come after death? Life after death - i.e life after life?

>>>> 

>>>

>>> I personally knew 3 people that had near-death experiences.

>>

>> That’s unusually many. But in extreme conditions people can have very

>> strange perceptions - that are often called hallucinations.

>

>

> Yes, this is the materialistic non-explanation to supersensible

> phenomena.

 

 

The world doesn’t change, but we perceive it differently, and sometimes

- quite often - we misperceive what is out there.

 

 

> You don't think on reincarnation because you don't know of a good theory

> explaining it and giving examples in history. It exists.

>

 

 

I don’t think so. Why would it?

 

 

> It is a necessity that we are reborn without normally remembering the

> previous life. Otherwise, we would have no freedom.

 

 

Why would we have no freedom? BTW if we reincarnate, how come you say

that "If you kill a human, never more will its highest characteristics

subsist.”?

 

What is reincarnated?

 

 

> If someone admits something, and another person admits tit but extends it

> and admits somewhat more that the former one does not admit, than the

> second person admits a proper superset than the former. I give an

> example. Suppose someone admites Newton's theory of gravitation, but

> doesn't admit relativity theory. Another person who admits both admits a

> proper superset of the former. Isn't that clear? It's a fact and does not

> involve value.

 

 

So, you accept the theory of evolution, as I do?

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 - ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

 

===========================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-08-23, 18:41 -0400  YYYY wrote:

 

 

Hi, ZZZZ, 

 

 

> On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 10:13 AM ZZZZ wrote:

>

>

> Hi YYYY,

>

 

>

>> On 20 Aug 2022, at 15:53, ZZZZ wrote:

>>

>> In these cases, you should say that animas are clearly plants, but a

>> separate species. Animals have much in common with plants, as I have

>> already described. 

>

>

> Some simple animals have something in common with some plants. More

> developed animals, vertebrates say (including us), don’t have much in

> common with plants.

 

Yes, they do: organic cells and tissues, organic forms (albeit

different), reproduction, tissue regeneration and growth, respiration

(plants in 24h cycles, animals much faster), birth and death. 

 

There are similarities between us and chimpanzees, e.g. both have noses,

mouths, arms, hands (but these have different capacities!) etc. But the

differences are overwhelming. Not in the DNA, though -- which means that

the DNA is not the cause for the differences!

 

 

 

> Yes, humans are rational in a way that animals in general are not -

>

 

 

Not "in general." Animals are not rational, period. Any statement to the

contrary is due to a fault in observation. Some behaviors that seem

rational are due to inherited instincts and the influence of the

environment, e.g. the presence of humans.

  

 

 

> though some have a degree of rationality.

>

 

No. Not in our sense of rationality, from the simpel fact that animals

don't think and cannot use concepts. 

 

 

 

>  I agreed with this before. We are also irrational, believing in things

> that have no valid basis in reason, which animals don’t. I don’t

> think we have such a thing as destiny, nor do animals.

 

 

Yes, we may behave irrationaly, e.g. due to feelings and sensations. If

two identical twins have the same education, have always lived together,

but have completely different adult lifes, one may call it "destiny".

Destiny or carma can be understood. But for this, you have to give up

thinking only in physical terms. 

 

 

 

>> Most important: If you kill an animal, its species will continue to exist.

>> If you kill a human, never more will its highest characteristics subsist.

>> In this sense, each human is similar to a whole animal species.

>>

> 

>  I don’t know what you mean by highest characteristics subsisting.

>

 

 

Memories, ideals, identity, desires, preferences, way of thinking etc.

 

 

 

> We have culture and inheritance, I pass my ideas on and my genes. And if

> you kill a human, its species will continue to exist.

 

 

No sir. You cannot prove that your ideas are passed in your genes -- the

evidences don't show this. Yes, the human species subsist, but not what

made that person an individual with characteristics that do not stem

from the inheritance or genes or the environment. Tell me, your parents

were professors? Mine were not. Have you ever thought that the offspring

of a genius is not a genius? E.g. Einstein, Gauss, Rieman, Bach, Mozart,

Mendelssohn, Picasso etc. etc. etc. Do you know who were Einstein's

parents? I don't. Why? Because the inheritance is absolutely irrelevant

in a genius. Einstein was a mediocre student. So his environment was also

not the cause for his genius. 

 

 

 

> You said they treated them as (they or we would treat) animals.

 

 

Yes, don't you think transporting people in animal trains, caged them,

killing them for nothing is not treating humans as animals? 

 

 

 

>> And treated Jews and Roma and disabled as animals, transporting them in

>> trains designed to transport animals, caged them etc.

>

>

>

> We do treat animals in that way sometimes, so that we can eat them. Or as

> pets. We don’t villify them, or hate them,

 

 

It's worst that that. Animals are sometimes killed as sport. BTW, maybe

you eat animals; I have so much compassion for them that I cannot eat

them -- have been a vegetarian for 51 years. I am the proof of existence,

not of uniqueness...

 

 

 

>> Agreed. I think they are materialists. Speaking about God each second

>> word doesn't make a person a spiritualist. This depends on her/his way of

>> thinking. Thinking only in a physical, material way, is what makes a

>> person a materialist.

>

>

>

> They believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, in a quasi-mystical

> way.

 

 

Yes, also in a fake race theory.

  

 

 

>  But, OK, people who don’t consider the experienced lives of others

> important are not spiritual in any meanigful sense. And this applies to

> animals too - considering their experienced lives.

 

 

If it were not for animals, we wouldn't be here. How do we thank them?

Eating them! Separating cows form their offsprings etc. ad nauseam. 

 

 

 

> It’s possible to treat animals more or less humanely. They treated them

> as some people treat some kinds of animals - as if their experienced

> lives don’t matter.

 

 

Yes. But not "more or less". We can treat them with compassion. They feel

pain as we do. 

 

 

 

>>> Exactly. Less human = animal (in extreme cases, a plant).

>>>

>

> Not really. Less human humans. They would have treated animals better.

>

 

 

You may love your pet but eat a cow... BTW Hitler was vegetarian...

 

 

> Or cruelty. Animals do not behave like nazis. And vice versa.

 

 

Have you seen a cat playing with a cockroach or a fly? They play until

they kill the insect. When animals behave in such a way that they seem to

have compassion, it is not our kind of compassion, it's an instinct. 

 

 

 

>> YOU don't know. I know. But don't ask me for physical descriptions of

>> this theory. It's not a physical theory.

>>

>

>

> What is it? And what do your mean by physical description? 

>

 

 

Start by reading my paper, which I've already  sent you:

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/const1-eng.htm

You asked for something shorter. I don't have it, at least with the same

contents. 

 

Physical description: one that only uses physical matter, energy and

phenomena. Someone who uses only this type of description is a

materialist.

 

 

 

>> Human fossils appeared last in evolution, but this does not mean that

>> humans did not exist before in another physical form which was not so

>> dense and did not leave fossils. 

>

> It doesn’t mean they did, so why assume they did, when there is no

> evidence for it?

>

 

 

The physical evidence are the unexplained capacities and forms that we

have and no animal has, that there are differente ascendent trees, and

all of them have missing nodes. Plus the fact that two

convergent mutations would take hundreds of millions of years to occur. 

 

 

 

>>>  But then we are not always rational animals - sometime we are

>>>  irrational ones.

>>

>>

>>

>> Yes, almost. Even a person who thinks very little before acting

>> constantly uses his/her thinking. For exemple, seeing a tree, this person

>> immediately thinks: "This is a tree". S/he has used her/his thinking to

>> reach the concept of the object. 

>

>

> Usually we don’t do that - we don’t think “I am looking at this and

> it is a tree”.

>

 

 

Yes, you are right. We almost never think about our thinking (Rudolf

Steiner called it a "state of exemption") But when a naïve person looks

at a tree and becomes conscious of the tree, s/he has already classified

it as a tree, using her/his thinking; s/he has reached its concept, which

is not physical. OK, here we disagree, you consider that concepts are

stored in some miraculous way in the brain -- but cannot prove it.

 

 

> We just avoid walking into it, as any animal would. We open doors and go

> through without thinking “this is a door”.

 

 

But when you tell somebody "please open that door" you are using the

concept and pointing to a physical manifestation of the concept "door".

 

 

>> We differ enormously from chimpanzees. To begin with, they don't have a

>> vertebral column with a double S, which permits us to stay erect. They

>> have no voice organs. They have fur. Etc. ad nauseam. 

>>

>

>

> Not quite ad nauseam, surely? The differences are relative. We are very

> like chimps morphogenetically. Some people are quite hairy. And chimps

> are quite smart.

 

 

No, the differences are enormous. Even morphogenetically. There is no

comparison between a hairy person and the fur of a chimpanzee. BTW, this

is an evolutionary mystery. There are lots of advantages in having a fur

-- e.g. protecting against cold and also warmth.

 

If a Martian would come here and examine chimps, he would never be able

to infer our form and intelectual capacities. BTW, a small child can

already make inferences that no chimp can. But examine a chimp in its

natural environment, and not one that is in constant contact with

humans. 

 

 

> Clearly, I disagree. We are very similar - we are animals - and this is

> very important to understand people, their experiences and their

> behaviour - which we need to do to treat them humanely. But we are

> different from animals - we are rational, and irrational (irrational does

> not mean an absence of rationality).

 

 

It is a tragedy that people study the behavior of animals to understand

ours. We transcend animals. E.g. we have ideals, animals have instincts

and conditioning.

 

 

>  If this non-physical being can affect physical things, then there

> should be evidence of physical effects. If it can’t, why does it matter?

 

 

Just look at yourself. Your willing, feeling and thinking are not

purely physical phenomena (it is not possible to prove that they are,

which enables me to make the hypothesis that they are not physical, but

interact with our physical body). You are a being with non-physical

"members" -- we agreed about consciousness, didn't we?

 

BTW, I was asked in a lecture I gave last Friday what is consciousness. I

think I developed a good characterization of it. (Kristo, give a look at

my page "Leis de Setzer", it's in Portuguese.)

 

 

>> But if we regard ourselves, we find many evidences that we are not just

>> purely physical. Free will is one of them. From matter no free will can

>> arise. But you have already admitted one non-physical capacity:

>> consciousness. It has to be experienced, it cannot be proved

>> materially, 

>

>

>

> Yes, agreed. But this doesn’t apply to a non-physical being . Only to

> ourselves, our own experience.  I never said we were purely physical.

>

 

 

If we are not purely physical, there exists "something" non-physical. Why

not make the hypothesis that there are non-physical beings?

 

 

 

>>> I don’t think these ancient people had non-physical organs - and I

>>> don’t know what a non-physical organ would be or do, do you?

>>>

>>

>> 

 

Yes, for sure! Read the paper I mentioned above.  

 

 

>> Yes, consciousness is due to a non-physical member or organ.

>>

>

>

> I agree that we are conscious, sometimes, but I don’t understand this

> “organ”.

 

 

Your breath due to an organ. Why not admit that consciousness is due to

a non-physical organ? Your memory is not physical -- you cannot prove

that it is, and there are evidences that it isn't. To begin with, there

are no limitations to it, it's infinite. Neurologists are beginning to

admit this fact, that you have already experienced many time. When trying

to remember something -- someone's name, a phone number -- you had never

had the experience that there was no more place to "store" it. If memory

is illimited, it cannot be physical. 

 

 

>>>  - but as i said before, they could perceive differently than we can. I

>>> think that’s interesting and think it can be recaptured, for example

>>> with psychedelic substances (which are part of some religious

>>> ceremonies).

>>

>>

>> Yes, it affects the connection between our supersensible members and our

>> physical body.

>

>

>

> It affects how we perceive, experience, what is in the world (of which we

> area  part). Maybe that’s what you mean? The world doesn’t change,

> but we perceive it differently.

 

 

ZZZZ, come on, there is no idea of how we form an inner image of

something we see -- images formed in the retina (up-side down!) are

transmitted to the brain as noise, divided into different nerves which

cross, and the nerve impulses go to 7 different areas in the brain. How

we see only one image? There is no idea how we sense the taste of an

apple. All non-physical phenomena produced by non-physical organs. 

 

 

 

>>>> But, as far as I can see, there is no escape - and that’s OK. What

>>>> would come after death? Life after death - i.e life after life? 

>>>>

>>> 

>>> I personally knew 3 people that had near-death experiences. 

>>>

>>> That’s unusually many. But in extreme conditions people can have very

>>> strange perceptions - that are often called hallucinations.

>>

>> 

>> Yes, this is the materialistic non-explanation to supersensible

>> phenomena. 

>

>

>

> The world doesn’t change, but we perceive it differently, and sometimes

> - quite often - we misperceive what is out there.

>

 

 

I've just re-read George Rotchie's Back from tomorrow. You should read

it. He was declared dead for 9 minutes, revived, and had extraordinary

experiences, like the view of the "panorama", the whole previous life as

being depicted  instantaneously on a screen. The people I knew who had

told me about their near-death experience told about this panorama 

 

 

 

>> You don't think on reincarnation because you don't know of a good theory

>> explaining it and giving examples in history. It exists. 

>

> I don’t think so. Why would it?

 

 

You don't know the theory and the examples.  

 

 

 

>> It is a necessity that we are reborn without normally remembering the

>> previous life. Otherwise, we would have no freedom. 

>

> Why would we have no freedom? BTW if we reincarnate, how come you say

> that "If you kill a human, never more will its highest characteristics

> subsist.”?

 

 

Because our previous life would influence our life. One has to be quite

prepared to have such an experience. 

 

I meant the characteristics of the previous life. We reincarnate to be

able to progress, and eventually compensate previous errors. Our destiny

(carma) leads us to situations where we can to it. But if we act

consciously, we may not follow our destiny, we have free will.

 

 

 

> What is reincarnated?

 

 

Read the paper I mentioned above. You will find the answer there.  

 

 

 

>> If someone admits something, and another person admits tit but extends it

>> and admits somewhat more that the former one does not admit, than the

>> second person admits a proper superset than the former. I give an

>> example. Suppose someone admites Newton's theory of gravitation, but

>> doesn't admit relativity theory. Another person who admits both admits a

>> proper superset of the former. Isn't that clear? It's a fact and does not

>> involve value. 

>

>

>

> So, you accept the theory of evolution, as I do?

>

 

 

There was evolution, but the cause was not random mutations and random

encounters. My theory of evolution is a proper superset of your theory of

evolution. 

 

I admit all scientific facts, as you do. But I admit facts that cannot be

proven scientifically in the materialistic sense. You don't admit them.

In this sense, my worldview is a proper superset of yours.

 

 

 

With love, YYYY. 

 

 

 

 

 

==================================

 

 

 

 

 

From: YYYY Date: Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 6:41 PM

Subject: Re: Atheism

To: ZZZZ

Cc: Kristo Ivanov <kivanov@informatik.umu.se>

 

 

 

 

 

Hi, ZZZZ, 

 

 

On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 10:13 AM ZZZZ wrote:

 

> Hi YYYY,

>

>

>

>> On 20 Aug 2022, at 15:53, YYYY wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>> In these case, you should say that animas are clearly plants, but a

>> separate species. Animals have much in common with plants, as I have

>> already described. 

>

>

> Some simple animals have something in common with some plants. More

> developed animals, vertebrates say (including us), don’t have much in

> common with plants.

 

 

Yes, they do: organic cells and tissues, organic forms (albeit

different), reproduction, tissue regeneration and growth, respiration

(plants in 24h cycles, animals much faster), birth and death. 

 

 

There are similarities between us and chimpanzees, e.g. both have noses,

mouths, arms, hands (but these have different capacities!) etc. But the

differences are overwhelming. Not in the DNA, though -- which means that

the DNA is not the cause for the differences!

 

 

> Yes, humans are rational in a way that animals in general are not -

>

 

Not "in general." Animals are not rational, period. Any statement to the

contrary is due to a fault in observation. Some behaviors that seem

rational are due to inherited instincts and the influence of the

environment, e.g. the presence of humans.

 

 

> though some have a degree of rationality.

>

 

No. Not in our sense of rationality, from the simpel fact that animals

don't think and cannot use concepts. 

 

 

> I agreed with this before. We are also irrational, believing in things

> that have no valid basis in reason, which animals don’t. I don’t

> think we have such a thing as destiny, nor do animals.

 

 

Yes, we may behave irrationaly, e.g. due to feelings and sensations. If

two identical twins have the same education, have always lived together,

but have completely different adult lifes, one may call it "destiny".

Destiny or carma can be understood. But for this, you have to give up

thinking only in physical terms. 

 

 

>> Most important: If you kill an animal, its species will continue to

>> exist. If you kill a human, never more will its highest characteristics

>> subsist. In this sense, each human is similar to a whole animal species.

>

>

>

>  I don’t know what you mean by highest characteristics subsisting.

 

 

Memories, ideals, identity, desires, preferences, way of thinking etc.

 

 

> We have culture and inheritance, I pass my ideas on and my genes. And if

> you kill a human, its species will continue to exist.

 

 

 

No sir. You cannot prove that your ideas are passed in your genes -- the

evidences don't show this. Yes, the human species subsist, but not what

made that person an individual with characteristics that do not stem

from the inheritance or genes or the environment. Tell me, your parents

were professors? Mine were not. Have you ever thought that the offspring

of a genius is not a genius? E.g. Einstein, Gauss, Rieman, Bach, Mozart,

Mendelssohn, Picasso etc. etc. etc. Do you know who were Einstein's

parents? I don't. Why? Because the inheritance is absolutely irrelevant

in a genius. Einstein was a mediocre student. So his environment was also

not the cause for his genius. 

 

 

 

> You said they treated them as (they or we would treat) animals.

 

 

Yes, don't you think transporting people in animal trains, caged them,

killing them for nothing is not treating humans as animals? 

 

 

>> And treated Jews and Roma and disabled as animals, transporting them in

>> trains designed to transport animals, caged them etc.

>>

>

>

> We do treat animals in that way sometimes, so that we can eat them. Or as

> pets. We don’t villify them, or hate them,

>

 

 

It's worse than that. Animals are sometimes killed as sport. BTW, maybe

you eat animals; I have so much compassion for them that I cannot eat

them -- have been a vegetarian for 51 years. I am the proof of existence,

not of uniqueness...

 

 

>> Agreed. I think they are materialists. Speaking about God each second

>> word doesn't make a person a spiritualist. This depends on her/his way of

>> thinking. Thinking only in a physical, material way, is what makes a

>> person a materialist.

>>

>

>

> They believed in the superiority of the Aryan race, in a quasi-mystical

> way.

 

 

Yes, also in a fake race theory.

  

 

> But, OK, people who don’t consider the experienced lives of others

> important are not spiritual in any meanigful sense. And this applies to

> animals too - considering their experienced lives.

>

 

 

If it were not for animals, we wouldn't be here. How do we thank them?

Eating them! Separating cows form their offsprings etc. ad nauseam. 

 

 

 

> It’s possible to treat animals more or less humanely. They treated them

> as some people treat some kinds of animals - as if their experienced

> lives don’t matter.

 

 

Yes. But not "more or less". We can treat them with compassion. They feel

pain as we do. 

 

 

>>> Exactly. Less human = animal (in extreme cases, a plant).

>

> 

> Not really. Less human humans. They would have treated animals better.

>

 

 

You may love your pet but eat a cow... BTW Hitler was vegetarian...

 

 

> Or cruelty. Animals do not behave like nazis. And vice versa.

 

 

Have you seen a cat playing with a cockroach or a fly? They play until

they kill the insect. When animals behave in such a way that they seem to

have compassion, it is not our kind of compassion, it's an instinct. 

 

 

>> YOU don't know. I know. But don't ask me for physical descriptions of

>> this theory. It's not a physical theory.

>>

>

>

> What is it? And what do your mean by physical description? 

>

 

Start by reading my paper, which I've already  sent you:

 

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/const1-eng.htm

 

You asked for something shorter. I don't have it, at least with the same

contents. 

 

Physical description: one that only uses physical matter, energy and

phenomena. Someone who uses only this type of description is a

materialist.

 

 

>> Human fossils appeared last in evolution, but this does not mean that

>> humans did not exist before in another physical form which was not so

>> dense and did not leave fossils. 

>

> It doesn’t mean they did, so why assume they did, when there is no

> evidence for it?

 

 

The physical evidence are the unexplained capacities and forms that we

have and no animal has, that there are differente ascendent trees, and

all of them have missing nodes. Plus the fact that two

convergent mutations would take hundreds of millions of years to occur. 

 

 

>>> But then we are not always rational animals - sometime we are irrational

>>> ones.

>>

>> 

>>

>> Yes, almost. Even a person who thinks very little before acting

>> constantly uses his/her thinking. For exemple, seeing a tree, this person

>> immediately thinks: "This is a tree". S/he has used her/his thinking to

>> reach the concept of the object. 

>

>

> Usually we don’t do that - we don’t think “I am looking at this and

> it is a tree”.

 

 

Yes, you are right. We almost never think about our thinking (Rudolf

Steiner called it a "state of exemption") But when a naïve person looks

at a tree and becomes conscious of the tree, s/he has already classified

it as a tree, using her/his thinking; s/he has reached its concept, which

is not physical. OK, here we disagree, you consider that concepts are

stored in some miraculous way in the brain -- but cannot prove it.

 

 

> We just avoid walking into it, as any animal would. We open doors and go

> through without thinking “this is a door”.

 

 

But when you tell somebody "please open that door" you are using the

concept and pointing to a physical manifestation of the concept "door".

 

 

 

>> We differ enormously from chimpanzees. To begin with, they don't have a

>> vertebral column with a double S, which permits us to stay erect. They

>> have no voice organs. They have fur. Etc. ad nauseam. 

>

>

>

> Not quite ad nauseam, surely? The differences are relative. We are very

> like chimps morphogenetically. Some people are quite hairy. And chimps

> are quite smart.

 

 

 

No, the differences are enormous. Even morphogenetically. There is no

comparison between a hairy person and the fur of a chimpanzee. BTW, this

is an evolutionary mystery. There are lots of advantages in having a fur

-- e.g. protecting against cold and also warmth.

 

 

If a Martian would come here and examine chimps, he would never be able

to infer our form and intelectual capacities. BTW, a small child can

already make inferences that no chimp can. But examine a chimp in its

natural environment, and not one that is in constant contact with

humans. 

 

 

> Clearly, I disagree. We are very similar - we are animals - and this is

> very important to understand people, their experiences and their

> behaviour - which we need to do to treat them humanely. But we are

> different from animals - we are rational, and irrational (irrational does

> not mean an absence of rationality).

 

 

It is a tragedy that people study the behavior of animals to understand

ours. We transcend animals. E.g. we have ideals, animals have instincts

and conditioning.

 

 

>  If this non-physical being can affect physical things, then there

> should be evidence of physical effects. If it can’t, why does it matter?

>

 

 

Just look at yourself. Your willing, feeling and thinking are not

purely physical phenomena (it is not possible to prove that they are,

which enables me to make the hypothesis that they are not physical, but

interact with our physical body). You are a being with non-physical

"members" -- we agreed about consciousness, didn't we?

 

 

BTW, I was asked in a lecture I gave last Friday what is consciousness. I

think I developed a good characterization of it. (Kristo, give a look at

my page "Leis de Setzer", it's in Portuguese.)

 

 

>> But if we regard ourselves, we find many evidences that we are not just

>> purely physical. Free will is one of them. From matter no free will can

>> arise. But you have already admitted one non-physical capacity:

>> consciousness. It has to be experienced, it cannot be proved

>> materially, 

>

>

>

> Yes, agreed. But this doesn’t apply to a non-physical being . Only to

> ourselves, our own experience.  I never said we were purely physical.

>

 

 

If we are not purely physical, there exists "something" non-physical. Why

not make the hypothesis that there are non-physical beings?

 

 

 

>>> I don’t think these ancient people had non-physical organs - and I

>>> don’t know what a non-physical organ would be or do, do you?

>>>

 

 

Yes, for sure! Read the paper I mentioned above.  

 

 

>> Yes, consciousness is due to a non-physical member or organ.

>

>

> I agree that we are conscious, sometimes, but I don’t understand this

> “organ”.

>

 

 

Your breath due to an organ. Why not admit that consciousness is due to

a non-physical organ? Your memory is not physical -- you cannot prove

that it is, and there are evidences that it isn't. To begin with, there

are no limitations to it, it's infinite. Neurologists are beginning to

admit this fact, that you have already experienced many time. When trying

to remember something -- someone's name, a phone number -- you had never

had the experience that there was no more place to "store" it. If memory

is illimited, it cannot be physical. 

 

 

>>> - but as i said before, they could perceive differently than we can. I

>>> think that’s interesting and think it can be recaptured, for example

>>> with psychedelic substances (which are part of some religious

>>> ceremonies).

>>

>> 

>> Yes, it affects the connection between our supersensible members and our

>> physical body.

>

>

>

> It affects how we perceive, experience, what is in the world (of which we

> area  part). Maybe that’s what you mean? The world doesn’t change,

> but we perceive it differently.

 

 

ZZZZ, come on, there is no idea of how we form an inner image of

something we see -- images formed in the retina (up-side down!) are

transmitted to the brain as noise, divided into different nerves which

cross, and the nerve impulses go to 7 different areas in the brain. How

we see only one image? There is no idea how we sense the taste of an

apple. All non-physical phenomena produced by non-physical organs. 

 

 

>>>> But, as far as I can see, there is no escape - and that’s OK. What

>>>> would come after death? Life after death - i.e life after life? 

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> I personally knew 3 people that had near-death experiences. 

>>>

>>> That’s unusually many. But in extreme conditions people can have very

>>> strange perceptions - that are often called hallucinations.

>>

>>

>>

>> Yes, this is the materialistic non-explanation to supersensible

>> phenomena. 

>

>

> The world doesn’t change, but we perceive it differently, and sometimes

> - quite often - we misperceive what is out there.

>

 

 

I've just re-read George Rotchie's Back from tomorrow. You should read

it. He was declared dead for 9 minutes, revived, and had extraordinary

experiences, like the view of the "panorama", the whole previous life as

being depicted  instantaneously on a screen. The people I knew who had

told me about their near-death experience told about this panorama 

 

 

 

>> You don't think on reincarnation because you don't know of a good theory

>> explaining it and giving examples in history. It exists. 

>

> I don’t think so. Why would it?

 

 

You don't know the theory and the examples.  

 

 

>> It is a necessity that we are reborn without normally remembering the

>> previous life. Otherwise, we would have no freedom. 

>

> Why would we have no freedom? BTW if we reincarnate, how come you say

> that "If you kill a human, never more will its highest characteristics

> subsist.”?

 

 

Because our previous life would influence our life. One has to be quite

prepared to have such an experience. 

 

 

I meant the characteristics of the previous life. We reincarnate to be

able to progress, and eventually compensate previous errors. Our destiny

(carma) leads us to situations where we can to it. But if we act

consciously, we may not follow our destiny, we have free will.

 

 

>

> What is reincarnated?

 

 

Read the paper I mentioned above. You will find the answer there.  

 

 

 

>> If someone admits something, and another person admits tit but extends it

>> and admits somewhat more that the former one does not admit, than the

>> second person admits a proper superset than the former. I give an

>> example. Suppose someone admits Newton's theory of gravitation, but

>> doesn't admit relativity theory. Another person who admits both admits a

>> proper superset of the former. Isn't that clear? It's a fact and does not

>> involve value. 

>

>

> So, you accept the theory of evolution, as I do?

 

 

There was evolution, but the cause was not random mutations and random

encounters. My theory of evolution is a proper superset of your theory of

evolution. 

 

 

I admit all scientific facts, as you do. But I admit facts that cannot be

proven scientifically in the materialistic sense. You don't admit them.

In this sense, my worldview is a proper superset of yours.

 

 

With love, YYYY 

 

 

 

 

====================================

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-09-06, 10:49 +0200 ZZZZ wrote:

 

Hi YYYY,

 

 

Thanks for your latest in the Atheism thread. I didn’t reply since

I’ve decided not to carry on with our discussion. It has been fun and

interesting up to a point, but now I feel we are both repeating our

positions - which are still very far apart, with little common ground -

and I’m not motivated to continue further.

 

I would like to thank you for what was for me a stimulating exchange of

views, and especially for your detailed and careful responses.

 

Kristo asked if I would be willing for him to quote parts of our

conversations as examples for his ongoing work on the role of logic in

debate. I have no problems with such use, whether the sources of

contributions are anonymised or not.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 - ZZZZ

 

 

 

 

====================================

 

 

 

 

 

On 2022-09-06, 09:47 -0400 YYYY wrote:

 

 

Hi, ZZZZ, 

 

 

> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 4:50 AM ZZZZ wrote:

>

>

> Hi YYYY,

>

>

> Thanks for your latest in the Atheism thread. I didn’t reply since

> I’ve decided not to carry on with our discussion. It has been fun and

> interesting up to a point, but now I feel we are both repeating our

> positions - which are still very far apart, with little common ground -

> and I’m not motivated to continue further.

 

 

Yes, I agree. But let me express an impression I have from your

positions. It seems to me that you have the intuition that there are

non-physical phenomena in the human being and in the world. But for you,

these phenomena are mere abstractions. When I said that consciousness is

due to a non-physical "member" present in humans and animals (with more

capacities in the case of humans), you refused to accept it. This means

that you refuse to consider something spiritually "concrete", albeit

having a personal experience of what you consider non-physical, our

consciousness. I wonder if this stems from a very common attitude: a fear

that you would have to expand your ideas and understanding about the

spirit. 

 

By the way, due to our interesting conversations, I developed a

characterization of what are consciousness and unconsciousness -- but not

what causes them (this would require some explanations of our

non-physical "members"). It is still in Portuguese in

 

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/jokes/leis.html

 

but I would translate it into English if you are interested. Just for

short, consciousness is a perception. 

 

 

 

> I would like to thank you for what was for me a stimulating exchange of

> views, and especially for your detailed and careful responses.

 

 

Yes, I thank you also. It was the first time I faced a person who admits

the existence of the spirit in a very limited way, and does not want to

expand his ideas and understand what the spirit really is.

 

It's a pity you didn't read and criticized my text

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/const1-eng.htm

 

I have also to thank you for prompting me to write a trilogy, trying to

show the evidences for the existence of the spirit. The first one was on

concepts not being physical, the second one, still being prepared, about

free will and the third one about forms and symmetries in living beings.

unexplainable in physical terms.

 

 

 

> Kristo asked if I would be willing for him to quote parts of our

> conversations as examples for his ongoing work on the role of logic in

> debate. I have no problems with such use, whether the sources of

> contributions are anonymised or not.

 

 

I had no objections either. But I think Kristo would have to extract what

is essential in our conversation, because of the repetitions you

correctly pointed out, ZZZZ. Kristo, if you do this it would be

interesting to submit it to our appreciation before publicizing it. 

 

 

Love, YYYY  

 

 

 

======================================

======================================

 

 

 

A third party’s biased resume of the conversation

 

 

A colleague of mine (of Kristo Ivanov) with a worldview identical to or close to ZZZZ’s, on seeing my account of the exchange of e-mails between YYYY and ZZZZ wrote a sort of resume of his (his/her) impressions. I reproduce it here for the convenience of critical readers, in order for all of us to realize the weak, if not any, impact of such “debate” on people who are already committed to the one side of it, and lack a common ground or undefined “worldview” that allows them to continue a possibly unending conversation:

 

The many problems mankind faces are not due to people accepting “physicalist” (i.e. scientific) theories and explanations as YYYY suggested. Quite the opposite – the problem is that too many people don’t accept them, they don’t accept science.

Instead, many believe “theories”, or stories, that claim to explain things but have little rational support – conspiracy “theories” are a recent example, but the same applies to stories of the supernatural, and to religious and other fairy tales about life after death, supernatural beings and powers. None of these are supported by the evidence.

We don’t underestimate people and overestimate animals as YYYY suggested – quite the contrary. We tend to overestimate people, as if they were specially created for some divine purpose, with destinies to be fulfilled, and the possibility of eternal life. There is no evidence for any of this, and I think it’s a harmful way of looking at things. We are not special in that way.

We tend to underestimate animals, so that we can act as if their lives don’t matter – this is what makes factory farming possible. It involves a callous disregard of the lived experiences of the animals we mistreat.

People are clearly animals, and are the way they are because of evolution. We are very similar to our closest animal relatives. Not the same, of course, but very similar – as shown by our DNA, amongst many other things. YYYY denies this, even though there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it.

The worst kinds of deluding story are those involving claims of superiority – my race is better than the others, or my color, my sex, my religion, my country, my football team. These are largely unfounded attitudes and lead to enormous harm when people treat other people as if they are inferior, less human than the accusers. In fact, the accusers behave less humanly, less humanely, because they do accept these kinds of spurious stories.

All animals, including humans, strive to live – to avoid pain and death. They agreed on this!

It is understandable that people want to believe stories that make them less scared. These may be of the kind that reassures the believer that they are worthy and valuable, helping cope with self-doubts. Others alleviate the natural fear of death, by promising life after it ends (which makes little sense and for which there is no evidence). Stories of God, or other divinities, help us cope with fear, and with meaninglessness, but are wrong- headed.

Our problem with meaning is that we tend to look for it in the wrong place, in our thoughts, in stories, in theories. Looked at conceptually, however, life is meaningless. Life on Earth, perhaps especially our life as thinking, feeling, and most of all conscious animals, is impossible to explain except as the result of a process – evolution from the simplest of forms – that is incomprehensibly improbable. But here we are, with no rational reasons, or evidence, to suggest that there is another explanation for why or how this happened. And evolutionary theory, while not a complete explanation – there are none – is a very, very fine, inspiring, indeed wonderful theory! There is so much evidence that evolutionary theory is broadly correct that to deny it is madness.

We are conscious beings, we are not just machines that can think and do things. But why we, and at least some other animals, are conscious is essentially mysterious. Not everything can be explained, at least not in a way that is rational and supported by evidence. Enjoy the mystery and wonder of being conscious, not just the thought of it – the experience. If meaning exists, it is in lived experience – experience of the kind that transcends our physicality.

 

======================================

======================================

 

 

 

A rejoinder to the Third Party’s resume of the conversation

 

 

I (Kristo Ivanov) repeat here below a slight edited piece of text that I wrote in my introduction to the last insert above on “A third party’s biased resume of the conversation”, in order to emphasize the importance of realizing the hopelessness of scientific-philosophical “debates”, which I already had addressed in an essay especially dedicated to Information and Debate:

 

“I reproduce here for the convenience of critical readers, in order for all of us to realize the weak, if any, impact of such “debate” on people who are already committed to the one side of it, and lack a common ground or undefined “worldview” that allows them to continue a possibly unending conversation”. I repeat here what I wrote above in the introduction to this whole paper: in my view all this tends to lead to “logical soccer”, as it happens to be practiced in the ongoing discussions about the “rationality” of general artificial intelligence (AI/AGI) . It is a poor reenactment and analogy of the misunderstood and endless theological debate on the Filioque, subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity that serendipitously deals with the meaning of Spirit, (and therefore of Intellect) where today the most analytically or rhetorically gifted and persevering party seems to win the game.

 

 

Valdemar Setzer (YYYY) had reflected upon the whole text above as I had edited it (version 221223-1635, that is left unchanged), and on January 14, 2024 he sent me the following mail with the wish that it be included at the end of it all:

 

 

 

From Valdemar W. Setzer (YYYY), on Jan 12, 2024, who comments of some of “Third Party’s” (here abbreviated as TP) text.:

 

You are right, “the many problems mankind faces are not due to people accepting ‘physicalist (i.e. scientific) theories.” I don’t recall what I wrote about this and will not try to find it in this enormous text. I’m sorry if I’ll repeat some arguments already in my previous postings. Many problems have specific origins. For instance, climate and geological problems are not due directly to physicalism. But many are. For instance, lack of human respect. For a person who is a coherent physicalist, humans are just a lump of matter. But matter deserves no respect, unless it is necessary for our existence. For instance, having compassion for a machine is a psychological aberration, e.g. having pity of turning off a computer. From the physicalist point of view, humans are mere physical machines. So, ignoring feelings and using just scientific reasoning, killing people is all right – it will diminish the excess of population.

 

I said, “ignoring feelings”. Well, feelings are occult, they cannot be subjected to science – unless for psychometrics (e.g. assigning values 0 to 5 for a feeling, which does not tell how we have feelings). PT, eat a banana. You feel the taste of it. Nobody can feel the taste you are feeling. Try to describe what is the taste of a banana to somebody who has never eaten one. This is impossible. Science, with its present physicalist paradigm will NEVER know what sensing a taste it – certainly, it is not the electrical impulses going form your tongue to your brain or somewhere else. Having feelings is an absolute individual and subjective experience – but physicalist science has to be universal and objective.

 

One argument that TP will probably not accept is that feelings and thinking don’t have a physical origin – but science cannot deny this argument.

 

If a spiritualist talks about Atlantis (e.g. mentioned by Plato, a deep spiritualist, because he was an initiate in the ancient mysteries, in Timaeus and Critias) most scientists, maybe “third party” as well, will laugh when Atlantis is mentioned. But scientists should not emit opinions about things that they cannot examine and disprove. Write down, TP: science will NEVER know what thinking, feeling, willing, memory, consciousness, self-awareness, free will, sleep, dream, life and death are, because their origin is not physical, and the evidences for them are overwhelming.

 

I expounded something about feelings. It is very easy to experience that thinking is not a phenomenon with a physical origin. Look at my short bilingual paper for a hint on this, where I show that concepts cannot be stored in the brain:

 

https://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/conceito-cerebro.pdf

 

Physicalists, please tell me where my arguments in tkhis paper are faulty.

 

TP wrote: “Quite the opposite – the problem is that too many people don’t accept them, they don’t accept science.” Science has to be accepted when it shows scientific facts. But scientific theories don’t have to be accepted. I mention here two of them: the “big bang” and Darwinian evolution, which have really become scientific dogmas – curious: a scientific-oriented mind should have no dogmas! Try to deny the big bang to a cosmologist or Darwinian evolution to a biologist to see what happens. I bet you will have to defend yourself with your fists… But isn’t it absolutely clear that science will never know what is the origin of matter and energy in the universe, because it just doesn’t make physical sense? (Forget such mere theories about quantum fluctuations, and quantum vacuum to explain why the concentrated matter just before the big bang did not form a super-hyper-dupper-black hole – and there would be no explosion. Or, supposing the expansion of the universe, where is it expanding to? To the “nothing”? How far does this “nothing” go? Science will NEVER know what an atomic particle is in its natural state, because to examine anything you have to insert energy into it and/or extract energy from it. But the minimum quantum of energy you insert or extract from an atomic particle changes its state! If atomic particles will never be known, nor atoms will. Isn’t it interesting? Physicalists, materialists, will never know what is matter in its atomic realm. This has prompted me to state a metaphor that materialists are people who live and work in a building which has no built first floor. Curiously, we have the clear notion of what matter is: anything that we can sense with our physical sense organs, such vision, taste, sound, etc. Therefore, physics has destroyed our notion of what matter is!

 

Accepting scientific facts, having clear thoughts as the scientific ones, is absolutely essential. But believing in science is another matter: it is scientism, a kind of religion. (Attention, I don’t belong to or profess any religious confession.)

 

“Underestimating people”: PT, you do exactly that when you consider humans – and living beings – as being composed uniquely of physical matter and energy. You degrade our memory when you unduly state that it resides in our brain (nobody knows something so simple as where the graphical representation 2 of the concept of the numeral two is stored in the brain and how it is used).

 

People are not “clearly animals”. The differences between animals and humans are overwhelming, beginning with our column with its double S (which permit our erect position), passing through our language and ending with our thinking. (I will not enumerate other big differences.) Humans have superior capacities than animals – this has absolutely nothing to do with humane differences, such as skin color. BTW, only a physicalist reasoning may conclude that humane physical differences matter. Who has been drastically changing the world (mostly for worse): humans or animals? Going further, TP, do you know who Einstein’s parents were? Probably not. Why? Because they don’t matter: Einstein’s genius was not physically inherited. Goethe was aware of this, when he stated, “From my father I have the stature, … from my mother the joy of storytelling” (my free translation)”:

 

From https://newcriterion.com/issues/1998/5/from-father-i-get-my-physique :

 

„Vom Vater hab ich die Statur,

Des Lebens ernstes Führen,

Vom Mütterchen die Frohnatur

Und Lust zu fabulieren.”

 

From father I get my physique,

Also my earnest nature;

My story-telling bent, glad heart

I have from my dear mother.

 

That is, as Rudolf Steiner has stated, his genius did not come from his father or from his mother. Why? Because the genius of a person does not come from her/his physical body, it comes from the spiritual world!

 

“Stories of God, or other divinities, help us cope with fear, and with meaninglessness, but are wrong- headed.” Yes, this maybe true for many religious people, but this was not the origin of humans believing in God and divinities. In very ancient times, humans had supersensible organs which allowed them to perceive the spiritual world, albeit not in a clear way, as it is possible nowadays – and they didn’t have the capacity of expressing their experiences through concepts, thus the ancient myths, such as the Geneses, a collection of images, symbols, to profound spiritual happenings with the Earth and humanity. (It is easy to prove that the “days” of Creation are symbols: the Sun and Moon were created in the 4^th “day”, Gen 1:4!). Physicalist science has NOTHING to say about God (whatever divinity this is taken for – s/he has become a pure abstraction) or divine beings, or the spirit in humans. Science should keep absolute silence about them. (Unfortunately, many scientists laugh about these matters, an absolutely unscientific attitude.)

 

Life is NOT meaningless. If life is meaningless (something ancient people would never say – how intuitively clever they were! Only in the middle of the 18^th century people began to think materialistically, e.g. La Métrie’s book “L’homme-machine”), then, TP, your life is meaningless? Then why don’t you commit suicide? Maybe out of fear? Interesting: fear doesn’t have a physical origin, it is a psychological attitude… Fortunately, most of physicalists are not coherent. For instance, they praise freedom (e.g. academic and of research), but physical matter is inexorably subjected to physical laws, so freedom cannot arise from it.

 

Speaking about incoherence, let’s see what TP wrote: “We are conscious beings, we are not just machines.” This is extremely interesting. “We are not just machines”. So we have something that is non-physical in us, as machines are purely physical. “But why we, and at least some other animals, are conscious is essentially mysterious.” Yes, animals are conscious – just hit a dog ant it will feel pain and yell. This is a result of consciousness. We are also conscious, and, moreover, self-conscious (as adults). “But why we, and at least some other animals, are conscious is essentially mysterious.” Yes, mysterious from a physicalist point of view, because consciousness is due to a non-physical member we and animals have! (Recall that consciousness is considered a “hard” scientific problem.) But only humans have self-consciousness because we have a spiritual element that animals don’t have. “Not everything can be explained, at least not in a way that is rational and supported by evidence.” You are wrong. Many phenomena not explainable from a physicalist point of view has a rational explanation from a conceptual, spiritualist point of view, e.g. why we are conscious beings. Certainly you want physical evidence. But you cannot give physical evidence that you are having the feeling of the taste of a banana when you eat it. So, there are individual, real phenomena that everybody is absolutely sure that they exist, but are beyond of what science can examine and prove.

 

“Enjoy the mystery and wonder of being conscious, not just the thought of it – the experience. If meaning exists, it is in lived experience – experience of the kind that transcends our physicality.       “ No Sir, I am a human, and if I don’t understand something, I become curious and want to know conceptual explanations about it. And if it “transcends our physicality”, have courage and look for non-physical explanations, as I did, and became highly satisfied – without faith and dogmas, maintaining a scientific attitude, albeit encompassing the spiritual world. Have courage to look for things that you cannot see, such as your own thoughts and feelings – which are certainly realities for yourself, that science does not understand, and will never do. As I said, these and other realities are occult to our physical senses and instruments. TP, you are an occultist!!!

 

 

 

==============THE END ===============

=====================================

============================================