Posts by Etude

81

Do you know why God cannot KNOW?

by Terry in

logic prohibits self-reference.

it is a convention like not multiplying by zero.

live with it!.

Etude

Terry:

" I'd have to understand what the basis is for asserting the firing of neurons obey the laws of physics. How do you account for the "Will"? "

Hmmm. You kinda jumped from one end of the universe to the opposite end there. We know that any thought processes involve the "firing of neurons" because we can actually measure which ones fire and which ones are inhibited and we use scientific tools based on electronics and other laws of physics to make those measurements. We also know that this is the way thought is conducted because when the electrical activity responsible for consciousness stops working, we declare a person brain-dead and pull the plug.

Really -- I don't see how we can contradict that. Now, the "will", Feynman or Hawkins is another matter. The knowledge of how those firing of neurons create thought and intellect, is presently beyond our understanding. But that there's a fundamental mechanism by which that happens is hardly in doubt.

In an earlier comment I made reference to "60 Minutes" piece showing how researchers are now able to tell if you're thinking of a particular object or if you're lying about something. They can't tell what you're lying about, but they can tell the difference from when you're telling the truth. Of course, this presently requires a sophisticated MRI and a person's cooperation. But the point is that we already have a rudimentary way to ascertain what goes on in someone else's mind. It's crude, but the implications are enormous.

I'm not saying that today or any time soon we will be able to read someone's mind. I am saying that given a sufficiently large intelligence, it may be possible to accomplish what we're trying to do today: finding what's on someone's mind. I suppose I could seem less deterministic or a reductionist by stating that given the possibilities, a large intelligence may not at every chance come up with THE answer. The calculations may lead to multiple answers that are likely to occur. But it would narrow the possibilities. In that respect (not being reductionist but as a parallel example), it would be like a game of chess that is played before the first piece is actually moved. The possibilities are already there and can be projected forward by several moves, knowing that the other player has a finite number of moves at the outset.

I don't disagree with your original premise about what god cannot know but not for the self-referent reason you mentioned. The way god is explained to us, s/he is boundless, omnipotent and a limitless sage. But that also means that s/he cannot escape his/her own make up (whatever that is) and would be automatically prohibited from creating an equal. The paradox that questions his/her existence is in the contradiction of his omnipotence and what s/he's unable to do.

81

Do you know why God cannot KNOW?

by Terry in

logic prohibits self-reference.

it is a convention like not multiplying by zero.

live with it!.

Etude

Terry:

" Additionally, the human mind can dabble with its own after-echoes. These resonances become recursive and all attempts to analyze them create meta-entanglements. If we think about thinking, for example... "

Sure. My point is that ultimately any "after-echoes", "resonances" or delusions our minds experience are coded in electrical impulses that obey the laws of physics. Due to individual differences but with the same constraints of the laws of physics, individuals will react differently. But the process is still the same. That allows for some things which are fundamentally the same make us agree on a lot, like whether it is day or night or that a forum exists called .

But it's quite likely that the women I lust after are different in looks than the ones you lust after. So, my lust is not your lust. But, they both can still be attributed to an identical process (not trajectory) of brain chemicals and electric impulses. If you could account for your variances and I for mine and input all of that into the fastest and most advanced computer ever built along with some rules, it might be able to predict that you like Mansfield breasts and that I like J-Lo butts. Did we get off topic?

81

Do you know why God cannot KNOW?

by Terry in

logic prohibits self-reference.

it is a convention like not multiplying by zero.

live with it!.

Etude

Terry:

" I can't see this being true in any meaningful sense." -- that living "actions" are no different in many ways to non-living actions, like shooting a rocket and " Reductionism doesn't work for certain things such as the MIND sets before itself. "

Perhaps reductionism may not work on situations involving the mind, not that I'm agreeing that my example technically involves reductionism at all. Maybe. But take a couple of examples, and you might agree that via reproducible stimulus, the mind will behave exactly in ways that we attribute to other causes. About 7 years ago I alluded to this on my thread: "Do you stimulate your "G" spot?" I remember posting a picture of helmet rigged with electrodes that can stimulate a specific sensation in the brain (by targeting the brain's "G" spot) akin to "spirituality". My point for mentioning this is that indeed a reproducible effect related to a mind state can be achieved with significant accuracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet

Even if the exact chemical or electrical process is not known, it's logical to conclude that one actually takes place in order to be able to create the same effect time after time. If you have doubts about what I'm insinuating, please google "man plays piano after". I was thinking of one particular case I saw (involving Dr. Oliver Sacks) where a man was struck by lightning while on the phone and was subsequently endowed with the ability to play the piano and write music.

In the googled examples, I found many more instances than I had expected of people becoming musical savants after incurring a head injury. I'm not saying that we can understand the exact process via which this happened. But it seems incontrovertible to me that the brain's chemistry and electrical matrix can be altered due to a traumatic event and allow for something to happen that we deem beyond a mechanical process, like shooting a rocket into space. Truth and beauty may be irreducible, but it seems to me they certainly reproducible, not just by the source of truth or beauty, but also by recreating a definite and direct process in the brain that provides the same sensation or conclusion.

So, I didn't see the "reductionism" to the degree that we can explain how the firing of neurons produce a specific memory or feeling. But, I guess I can agree that a specific and discrete process occurs and can even arise that explains a thought or feeling and can even be part of a determination of thought. If that process could be known with sufficient accuracy (which is doubtfull for now), it might be possible to predict what a mind is going to do next. http://singularityhub.com/2009/01/08/reading-your-mind-with-fmri/

81

Do you know why God cannot KNOW?

by Terry in

logic prohibits self-reference.

it is a convention like not multiplying by zero.

live with it!.

Etude

Schrödinger's cat just rolled over in its grave. Maybe.

Either it did or it didn't But certainly not both. And certainly not neither.

Not both nor something in between, "Excluded Middle".

81

Do you know why God cannot KNOW?

by Terry in

logic prohibits self-reference.

it is a convention like not multiplying by zero.

live with it!.

Etude

Terry: " Well I only intend that statement in direct reference to the thought experiment with the time bomb scenario. It won't extrapolate beyond that."

OK. I get what you mean.

" The interesting question (well, to ME, anyway) is what is it we are CERTAIN that God knows in advance when there exist person's who have the power and the will to change, disturb, rearrange, nullify, invent or corrupt ?"

I can see that. You're setting up a hypothetical in order to illustrate how there's mutual exclusivity in knowing and the fact that the "knowing" alters the outcome, thereby presenting a self-referent paradox. But given my example of the coin toss, it's possible to conceive that any detail, in fact, all details (knowledge points) associated with an event, as much as they influence an event, can be known at the same instant by a sufficiently advanced intelligence (perhaps a super-duper computer), thus being able to process and "predict" (and possibly influence) the outcome no matter what it may be or what possibilities exist. Such a being could calculate the logical outcome and either let it happen or change it.

" Scientific Prediction deals with non-living physics accurately enough to --say---shoot a rocket containing a robot off through space and land it in a specific area at a precise location in time and space EVEN THOUGH earth is spinning and so is Mars WHILE revolving about the Sun!"

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But consider it this way:Any action or event you may consider "non-living" is no different than an action or event that results from chemical interactions in our brains, transported by electrical impulses that obey the laws of physics. Yes, they are much, much more complicated. Yet, they happen according to prescribe physical laws. So, in essence, you could predict thought if you knew the exact set of circumstances (chemistry, memory, brain paths and input) associated with one particular brain. I'm not saying that this is the way we should conceive everything in the universe. I'm just saying that this is a situation that can possibly occur and change our idea of what can be known and what may be possible.

So, I'm suggesting that if we just follow the physical laws, there is room to propagate (to the n th degree) the interaction of variables to the point where an outcome can be determined, changed or allowed to happen.

81

Do you know why God cannot KNOW?

by Terry in

logic prohibits self-reference.

it is a convention like not multiplying by zero.

live with it!.

Etude

Terry: As usual, you pose another provocative question. You sucked me in when I really don't have time to be on-line.

" Logic prohibits self-reference "

Yes, indeed it does. And your consideration tells me that it's not an easy subject. For example, you say: " IF you divulge the day and hour and location of the event IN ADVANCE you insure the event will NOT occur. " Reading your initial presentation as a whole, I would think that, given your example about Gitmo, it is more accurate to say : "IF you divulge the day and hour and location of an event IN ADVANCE you insure the specific event will NOT occur." Even that is not strictly accurate because what will happen to the event is dependent on who wants to know and what their intensions are. If the event was a Justin Beiber concert, the revelation of that would not prevent the event from occurring, unless the world came to its senses, as I have, and decided that they could give a rat's ass about Beiber's musical contribution to the world (Oh, baby, baby, baby). In that case, no one would show up and there would be no concert.

So, I don't see the self-reference in either of those examples because the knowledge about the event does not guarantee any specific outcome (such as if the bombing's time and place is revealed but could not be stopped anyway). There is no guaranteed outcome.

I think that what you posit may be more accurate in terms of "circular reasoning". I really don't know (technically) but it seems to me that circular reasoning is closely tied to self-reference. The famous statement by a liar: "This sentence is not true" connotes that the sentence must be true because the liar will always speak to the contrary. If the liar is telling a lie, then the opposite must be true. But if the sentence is true, then the liar is not lying and would not be a liar, making his sentence a lie. Therefore, self-reference in this case leads to a paradox.

So, take these examples into consideration: "This sentence contains five words" or "These words are not self-referent". The first sentence is self-referent but is not a paradox. Change the number "five" to some other number and now it becomes, not paradoxical, but false and still self-referent. Staying with your line of thought, one circular or self-referent statement that would fit your intent would be: "All things are possible to God (omnipotence). God cannot lie (or sin)." It is both paradoxical and self-referent.

Bringing the argument to its original premise, it would be fair to say that "knowing" does not guarantee an outcome. But suppose God has the omnipotence to effect any outcome she wants (to make it so), still, the outcome is a matter of choice to either prevent a happening or guarantee that it happens.

I don't know if it's still true. But back then when I was in college (late 1970s) it seemed to me that one goal of Physics was to infer (via several methods, including backward chaining) certain origins that could describe the properties of matter or causes. Using forward chaining instead, I envisioned that if all, I mean all, variables affecting an event could be taken into consideration, then an outcome could be accurately predicted. Imagine tossing a coin, knowing the exact force from the fingers, the temperature of the air, the wind velocity, the vector of the initial thrust, the inclination and hardness and texture of the surface it will fall upon (and trajectory based on the previous factors), you could conceivably "predict" if it will land heads or tails. Propaget that to ther things it would be conceivable to know the future. In a sense, it is the holy grail of Meteorology in order to "predict" if a tornado or hurricane will actually form.

Of course there isn't a mind large enough to take in all those variables from micro-second to micro-second, unless one decides that that mind is God. But some computers have a valiant effort to deal with some events, like reproducing in real time the wake of wind under a helicopter blade. That's a tough one.

I do understand your point regarding the inevitability of events set to motion: The bomb is set. Only the terrorist knows where and at what time the timer will set off. Unless there's some intervention, the bomb will detonate. But the knowledge by the interrogators of the time and place of the explosion does not guarantee that the event will not occur. On the other hand, it possible that even without intervention, the bomb would not have gone off because a rat chewed through some of the wires. It's like Occam's Razor.

" There are is no certainty to knowledge UNLESS and UNTIL what is being called "known" actually TAKE PLACE. " So, you redeem in a way by that statement. Still, we need to define what we call "knowledge" because there can be knowledge (that there are explosives in a place and time) but not that an event will inevitably happen given tenuous circumstances. Some event's are certain. Via the laws of Physics we can determine that the Earth will continually rotate on its axis to provide us day and night. That's as rock-solid as it gets. The guarantee that there exists very little to interfere with that makes a practically immutable certainty for us.

I would venture to think that a mind that can be omniscient to such a degree as is attributed to God either doesn't exist or doesn't really care about the sequence of events in the universe, doesn't care to the point of complete non-interference.

132

"Believers" vs. Atheists- Why this formulation?

by Band on the Run in

i believe christ is god.

when i left the witnesses i believed i had to be agnostic.

through a scheduling conflict, i studied the new testament in college.

Etude

botchtowersociety: " Intellectually, I am an atheist but something within me calls me to faith "

In a way BTS, I'm exactly where you are. Although I call myself a committed agnostic, I really don't care about the labels (atheist, agnostic, etc). But I too have those other yearnings that lean towards the non-science I so much uphold. However, I stop short of calling it "faith". What I have settled on is something that science has already indicated: that we have brain functions and centers associated with a sense of spirituality and of "more" and of "connectedness" with the universe, etc. I can't deny that any more than I can ignore having to take a pee. I also realize that such inclinations are more or less pronounced in many individuals. I'm in the process of figuring out how to satisfy that without resorting to mumbo-jumbo. It's not irrational to satisfy a craving simply because we can't explain the craving. And, in my case, it doesn't hurt anyone. So, I say listen to it and see where it takes you. But do it with eyes wide open.

69

How important is evidence to your world view?

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

how important is evidence to your world view?.

if you had to make a decision on a fact being true, what would be the deciding factor for you... your feelings and faith, scriptural statement or evidence presented by modern science?.

would scripture trump evidence, or would faith trump scripture etc .

Etude

snare&racket: As a JW I was initially like you, not questioning pretty much everything. Oh, I asked question. But they were ready for me and I was all too willing to accept. One thing I never questioned was the apparent non-conditional friendships they offered. That was my weakness. But eventually, I realized that in many things there was a little voice inside me which I realize I was suppressing; a little voice that sometimes asked: "Is it really like that?"

Then Bethel happened. My eyes were opened wider than ever before. But it was after leaving there and starting college that the proverbial nail-in-the-coffin started pounding on the remnants of that reality and moving towards a new one. It was gradual, because even after that started, I still had hopes of going back.

But now, I've developed a strange, odd and at the same time comforting relationship with uncertainty. Being fooled like you, I decided that there was little to be certain about. That's why I perpetually seek facts and truth without forcing myself to assume what that might be.

Nevertheless, one of my experiences on this forum has been to partake in very heavy and contentious (yet civil) exchanges with many interesting individuals precisely because of my caution to make certain conclusions where they are not, in my opinion, warranted. I have no idea if I've succeeded in making my point or the degree of effectiveness with which I communicated. Yet it's been a wonderful opportunity to express myself in a way I seldom get to do and to people who are more likely to understand (but not necessarily agree). Whatever the results are, I feel compelled to tell it like I see it. That will never stop. My hope is that if I'm wrong I get to be convinced otherwise. There's a certain kind of thrill for me to face something, an idea, I had never encountered before. I hope you're experience is as satisfactory.

102

Conti v Watchtower - Court Denies Watchtower Motion re: Substituting Bond - November 16 court documents in pdf

by jwleaks in

jw leaks has published the latest court documents, in pdf, relating to "candace conti v the watchtower bible and tract society of new york" as filed on november 16, 2012.. the watchtower society motion to substitute or reduce bond on appeal is denied.. www.jwleaks.org.

.

Etude

I know there are people here who could answer the question. Perhaps I posted at a time when no one was looking. So, can someone address the following:

I know nothing about legal matters, so I just wanted to restate what I understood regarding a "settlement". My capture is that once the veredict is handed and the case has been determinied, it is up to the defendant (or perhaps any litigant?) to propose a settlement if any of the following is true:

The settlement is offered during a period of time between the decision and a point of acceptance or appeal.
The settlement is presented while an appeal is in progres, which can change the outcome of the original decision.
The settlement is presented before any or all appeals are exhausted or before the time for filing an appeal is past.

Is that right?

69

How important is evidence to your world view?

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

how important is evidence to your world view?.

if you had to make a decision on a fact being true, what would be the deciding factor for you... your feelings and faith, scriptural statement or evidence presented by modern science?.

would scripture trump evidence, or would faith trump scripture etc .

Etude

Evidence in any decision or outlook is critically essential. The meaning of evidence imparts facts, information (knowledge) and corroborations (verification) regarding an object or event. All of that leads to a conclusion we call truth. So evidence and corroboration leads to truth (look up "evidence"). From that definition alone, I don't see how we could possibly operate in life without a constant consideration of evidence, so that we can arrive at truth.

Truth is not relative. Truth is always true. What might have been considered true and is no longer was never true to begin with. If it WAS true, although assumed, was based on faulty evidence and faulty information (maybe faulty reasoning). Therefore, we need to discern what our sources of information are and that corroboration comes from neutral and reliable (as much as can be determined) sources.

My trusty old college Logic text (Practical Logic, which I have no reason to doubt) states that one source of knowledge (information) can come internally via reason. Reason is the process via which we take data (facts and information) along with corroboration (separate data) and conclude or arrive at a new (or perhaps old but logical) conclusion. For example: If we're asked for the sum of 1 million plus 1 million, it's unlikely that we have ever seen one, let alone two million, to proceed and concretely come up with an answer. Nevertheless, we can muster a "2-million" answer based on reason. It seems that this and the other methods of knowledge and corroboration is all that would be required in order to maintain a proper "world view". Reasoning in a logical manner has rules and it seems not everyone is able to perform that task decently well. Logic is a great arbiter of whether our views are valid or not.

Nevertheless, a "world view" would always likely remain incomplete because we just don't have the ability to know everything and we're inherently limited to information that could give us an accurate picture. In an ideal world, our "world view" would contain many "I don't know" statements. It would be obvious that some things can never be concluded upon or reasoned to a fare-thee-well.

jgnat: " Similarly, no-one has taken a tape-measure to a star. Nevertheless, from known constants and triangulation, we can get very precise measurements. "

This is a very good example of how reason can yield knowledge. We take some basic proven factors (units of measure [feet, miles], trajectory, the speed of light, etc) and deduce, without actually using a physical yard stick that such and such star is this or that far away. Even so, we have a problem: our present way of measuring has led us to conclude that based on the way the universe is expanding (the increasing distances between stars and galaxies), we are forced to conclude that there's much more matter we don't see -- Dark Matter. So lately, we are revisiting our ways of measuring to eliminate hypothetical matter that (by the scientific method) cannot be verified. What some are suggesting is that our idea of the constancy of the speed of light or time relativity is wrong. Holy cow!

botchtowersociety, you make an excellent point in your #9070 post. You allude to mentality and how we can possibly know if we're facing it. I have seen clever computer programs that (via a monitor and keyboard) interacting with a human have fooled the human into thinking that they were talking to another person. You also refer to the philosophical argument that has been raised about this, one which you do not mention but still has sway on this dialog is the "Discourse on the Method" by Rene Descartes. The idea that there is very little we can ascertain to let us tell the difference between illusion and reality leads to not very much to conclude except that we (strictly I, or whomever you are) exists and the rest is as good as a dream or some reality we must accept with little other confirmation.

botchtowersociety: " Yes, but as we both know, electrons are measured in other ways. "

Hence lies the problem. There is a part of the quantum physics that tell us that what we measure, when it comes to the electron and similar particles, is a statistical prediction of how much energy it may have depending on its location, which is or would be unknown. If you knew exactly where it was, you would know very little else about it. What other ways do we have to measure an electron that contradicts this Uncertainty Principle? The only other thing I can think of is that there is no such thing as an electron and what we really have is a one-dimensional string that floats in and out of another 11 dimensions which, depending on its vibration, gives us the appearance of what we call an electron. The problem is, we can't test that. I can't think of any other way of explaining how critical evidence is to our world view and how much little our world view can actually encompass.