tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post626749777909477926..comments2024-02-20T15:17:48.594+11:00Comments on A.E.Brain: The Mind, the Brain, and the Non-Existence of an Interventionist DeityZoe Brainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-71888872387940643152011-05-29T00:20:21.701+10:002011-05-29T00:20:21.701+10:00BTW I recommend Cardinal Pole's Blog.
Comment...BTW I recommend <a href="http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Cardinal Pole's Blog</a>.<br /><br /><i>Commentary, from an uncompromisingly Traditional and arch-reactionary perspective, on Australian and world Catholic and secular news and ideas</i><br /><br />An honest description from an uncompromisingly honest person. Though "arch-reactionary" understates the case, if anything.Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-68005697698284935312011-05-29T00:14:51.554+10:002011-05-29T00:14:51.554+10:00Hi Morgan! Welcome! Please have a look at other po...Hi Morgan! Welcome! Please have a look at other posts. You may find the ones tagged "religion", "ethics" and "brains" interesting.<br /><br />As regards limiting the Universe to what can fit in my head - I agree, I do. But I have yet to see any evidence that others don't too.Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-32995419189302685122011-05-28T01:18:30.939+10:002011-05-28T01:18:30.939+10:00Hmm, a deep post but it is also limited. I deduce ...Hmm, a deep post but it is also limited. I deduce you are extremely intelligent with years of education underpinning that intellect. Unfortunately, that is also what hampers your ability to perceive the universe.<br /><br />I think we could have long and involved conversations about this topic, but I also think you have limited the universe to what can fit into your head. With that handicap, there are limits to the value of conversation.<br /><br /><b>Morgan Hikikomori Johnson</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-67232823134070430942008-11-18T18:23:00.000+11:002008-11-18T18:23:00.000+11:00Justice should be tempered with mercy: judge not, ...Justice should be tempered with mercy: judge not, lest ye also shall be judged.<BR/><BR/>I seem to recall an incident involving stones, and casting the first thereof.<BR/><BR/>Note also that "Go thou and sin no more" is the important issue here, and not a perfectly just and wholly righteous punishment for wrongdoing. Forgiveness. Repentance. Restitution, as much as that can be given, else repentance is merely a word.<BR/><BR/>I prefer the word "charity" rather than the over-used "love" in the translation of 1 Corinthians 13.<BR/><BR/>Forgive me, you Eminence, for I have seen and personally experienced far too much Righteous Wrath, which is all too often merely an excuse for cruelty. Many with evil in their hearts wish to be violent and cruel, yet their religion and social sanction forbids this. So when they see a fellow sinner, one who has been outlawed, they give full rein to their malice and spite, all the time piously prating about how they're merely doing God's work.<BR/><BR/>Islam is particularly vulnerable to such hypocrisy, but all religions suffer it to one degree or another, Catholicism included. It's almost - but not quite - enough for me to believe in the existence of an Adversary who tries to delude us. However, before I could believe in such an entity, I'd have to believe in God first. That's a personal axiom.<BR/><BR/>If we do not punish, would that not encourage other evildoers to continue, knowing they'll face no comeback? Well, yes, inarguably. The trick is to make sure that we don't fall into the trap of lacking mercy, and history is rather too full of such examples.<BR/><BR/>My thanks for your continued presence here, your incisive (as in razor-like) logic is an ornament to this blog.Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-31949791019498890812008-11-18T17:43:00.000+11:002008-11-18T17:43:00.000+11:00I agree heartily: virtus sola nobilitat, virtue is...I agree heartily: <I>virtus sola nobilitat</I>, virtue is its own reward--or better: virtue is an end in itself. But Zoe, don't you see, then, the inconsistency of what you say here:<BR/><BR/>"You do this not because of rewards and punishments, <B>those are merely means to coerce good acts, and may even be morally wrong as often as they are morally right</B>. You do Good because it's good. Virtue is its own reward, and on this earth, often it's only reward. The race is not always to the swift, nor the contest to the strong, but that's where the smart money is, and not on who's more virtuous."<BR/>(my emphasis)<BR/><BR/>Justice is a virtue, a cardinal virtue, and justice, to put it as simply as possible, means each person gets what he is owed. In other words, justice is reward and punishment. A reward is never wrong in itself, and neither is a punishment. In fact, withholding the reward or punishment would be the evil, and accordingly should only be permitted in order to procure a greater good or avert a greater evil.<BR/><BR/>So how, then, can you speak of rewards and punishments as mere means, when they are virtuous, they are ends in themselves? How can they be morally wrong, when they are just?Cardinal Polehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15606972767215157799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-35648295837855488942008-11-18T01:00:00.000+11:002008-11-18T01:00:00.000+11:00You make assumptions I disagree with, my axioms di...You make assumptions I disagree with, my axioms differ.<BR/><BR/>No system can be both complete and consistent: Goedel Theory states that for any system whatsoever, there must either be unprovable truths, or inconsistences, where there exist propositions that can be both proven true and proven false at the same time.<BR/><BR/>As a computer scientist dealing with (amongst other things) information theory, and as a Pure Mathematician, Goedel theory and computability, consistency and completeness of systems in a mathematical sense, is something I can't ignore, or Reality slaps me in the face.<BR/><BR/>So if we are to have a system that is consistent, it is necessary (but not sufficient) to have axioms - unprovable assumptions.<BR/><BR/>Now assuming a non-physical component of identity exists, and "soul" is as good a word as any for that, then that may be the source of gnosis. Knowledge about Good and Evil. It is however, a very unsatisfactory answer, as without reason to shore it up, without experimentation showing that Good intent tends to lead to Good outcomes, and Evil intent tends to lead to Evil outcomes, (no matter how you define them), then it is not useful, and may be disregarded as mere conjecture, even if it genuinely is True.<BR/><BR/>My own personal beliefs can be encapsulated in 1 Corinthians 13. Or, to reduce it to a sound-byte, Love one another. All else is elaboration and commentary.<BR/><BR/>You do this not because of rewards and punishments, those are merely means to coerce good acts, and may even be morally wrong as often as they are morally right. You do Good because it's good. Virtue is its own reward, and on this earth, often it's only reward. The race is not always to the swift, nor the contest to the strong, but that's where the smart money is, and not on who's more virtuous.<BR/><BR/>In that regard alone, I have faith. It transcends questions of theology, whether souls exist, whether God exists, either as interventionist or creator unable to intervene in His own creation as that would be the same as making his children into robots.<BR/><BR/>I will try to be kind, and will attempt to do so, regardless of reward or punishment. And I will spend a lot of time thinking deeply about what "being kind" means, as there's always the possibility of error.<BR/><BR/>And if He exists, God deserves my respect to the extent that He is Good, not to the extent that he is powerful. Might, even supernatural might, does not make Right. I refuse to fear Him, but I may have some compassion for Him. Love too, as a daughter has for her father.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe Yeshua ben Yosef was the son of God. But he had some remarkably insightful things to say, and one could do far worse than follow the precepts he espoused. A lot has, however, doubtlessly been lost in the translation. For if not, there would be no schisms, no sects, no Orthodox, Catholic, Marionite, Meringovian, Hussite, Copt, Baptist, Anabaptist, 7th day Adventist, Exclusive Brethren etc etc. Let alone Shia, Sunni, Sufi and so on.Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-48962786908702243912008-11-17T22:20:00.000+11:002008-11-17T22:20:00.000+11:00"It's possible to postulate such an Entity, one wh..."It's possible to postulate such an Entity, one who can do anything, outside all physical bounds, but such an Entity would be utterly ineffable, and completely outside our understanding in even the smallest respect."<BR/><BR/>There is a fascinating footnote early in the Catechism of the Council of Trent that lists some of the attributes of God as inferred by the great Pagan authors like Anaxagoras, Xenophanes, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. These attributes are remarkably similar to the ones that God revealed to the ancient Hebrews, though the Pagans had some errors mixed in, of course. So I'm not sure why you think that God is "completely outside our understanding in even the smallest respect".<BR/><BR/>"If He can do anything whatsoever then there's no point in saying that anything is cause or anything is effect. The Invisible Pink Unicorn does the lot."<BR/><BR/>That's putting it pretty crudely. To look again to the Roman Catechism, we read that "Not only does God protect and govern all things by His Providence, but He also by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts, and this in such a manner that, although He excludes not, He yet precedes the agency of secondary causes." (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/Trent.php)<BR/><BR/>As to morality, you say you consider it entirely separate, so it's up to you whether you want to pursue this or not, but what do you mean by evil being evil and good being good? Are you saying that you would agree with St. Thomas that sin (speaking analogically from your perspective) is an offence against reason, and so evil means trangressing the laws of right reason and good means abiding by them? The problem is then, if there is no metaphysical reward and punishment, then what is so unreasonable about sin in the first place?<BR/><BR/>Let me offer two examples: lying and sodomy. Now sodomy is punished through the natural order, through anal fissures, genital warts and so on. Clearly, then, sodomy is evil. But lying, which, I expect, you would agree is in some sense wrong, does not necessarily carry any earthly punishment, and can even bring advantages in this life. So do you even agree, then, that lying is intrinsically wrong? I suppose what I'm saying is that given that the essence of morality is recognising a law and abiding by it (see, for instance, Prof. Amerio in <I>Iota Unum</I>), and supposing that the only laws are the laws of physics, then what really makes evil evil and good good?Cardinal Polehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15606972767215157799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-83405982536650956612008-11-15T00:08:00.000+11:002008-11-15T00:08:00.000+11:00"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiri...<I> "Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."</I><BR/> — Steve EleyZoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-41016908956743841692008-11-14T23:28:00.000+11:002008-11-14T23:28:00.000+11:00I was just thinking, Zoe, how do we know that thes...I was just thinking, Zoe, how do we know that these unicorns are pink if we cannot see them? Does it require a leap of faith?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-12193661108437910072008-11-14T12:13:00.000+11:002008-11-14T12:13:00.000+11:00SERIOUSLY Off Topic. Please desist.And on another ...SERIOUSLY Off Topic. Please desist.<BR/><BR/>And on another issue, I may have to institute a policy of deleting unsigned anonymous comments unread. Politeness isn't working.Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-23938622753684997822008-11-14T11:12:00.000+11:002008-11-14T11:12:00.000+11:00Here is a bit of how I see the Obama election:http...Here is a bit of how I see the Obama election:<BR/><BR/>http://www.reason.com/news/show/130054.html<BR/><BR/>Bush's policies were not by any stretch of the imagination libertarian, unlike what many Democrats and progressives like to lie about or talk in complete ignorance of. The only thing they can get that seems libertarian about Bush is from his rhetoric, but actions speak louder than words, and what I see is that in the first 4 years of Bush's administration alone, <I>non-defense</I> spending expanded as much or more than it did in Clinton's entire 8! A lot of this included spending for prescription drugs and education and other big government programs.<BR/><BR/>Oh he did cut taxes, but he did not cut spending with it, causing a massive deficit. Again, that is very unlibertarian.<BR/><BR/>He also said he would vote for a renewed assault weapons ban if it landed on his desk and he had an amicus brief sent to the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller saying the DC handgun ban should have been upheld.<BR/><BR/>Again, not by any stretch of the imagination was Bush libertarian. Instead, he seemed more progressive than anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-62981073119420318572008-11-14T07:40:00.000+11:002008-11-14T07:40:00.000+11:00The quantum of the brain does not follow the therm...The quantum of the brain does not follow the thermodynamics laws.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-43502621910515009622008-11-14T03:20:00.000+11:002008-11-14T03:20:00.000+11:00So the IPU is Maxwell's Demon?So the IPU is Maxwell's Demon?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17428410277953020650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-56626101299040980692008-11-14T03:01:00.000+11:002008-11-14T03:01:00.000+11:00There is no doubt that that there is a phenomenal...There is no doubt that that there is a phenomenal consciousness. The questions that do not have factual answers are; Why do we have it? What is it for? How can we use it to our benefit? What does it mean? Where is it located? When was it formed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-15593240753115250482008-11-14T00:22:00.000+11:002008-11-14T00:22:00.000+11:00but...but...I LIKE Invisible Pink Unicorns...but...but...I LIKE Invisible Pink Unicorns...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-25648227353504373942008-11-13T20:30:00.000+11:002008-11-13T20:30:00.000+11:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDIV7YZ5-Zchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDIV7YZ5-ZcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-77279110737830948832008-11-13T18:11:00.000+11:002008-11-13T18:11:00.000+11:00Please, I got a question I'd like you to answer:ht...Please, I got a question I'd like you to answer:<BR/>http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/11/todays-battle.html<BR/><BR/>It's the last one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com