God and Time

[CharlesV]

It is commonly believed that God stands outside of time and is able to view all temporal events, past, present, and future, from a transcendent time-less Now. This claim, though widely believed, is false, and for a very obvious reason.

Consider the following:

Yesterday I was at the grocery store looking at a magazine. I have a clear and distinct memory of this. If God truly sees all moments in time, that event, being a moment in time, does really exist as well, otherwise there would be nothing for God to see. But if that moment does really exist, I must be there experiencing it in the very same sense as I experiened it yesterday. Yet I am not. I cannot be mistaken in this because I was the one whose experience it was. If it was happening, I would surely know about it. Yet clearly it is not.

Thus God has no timeless and transcendent view of time because the past no longer is, and the future is not yet. Only the present is real and experienced. All else is memory and expectation only.

[Abraxas]

Abraxas…What incredible inconsistency! You have stated categorically that consciousness has no power to cause anything. Yet the very arguments you employ to defend your position, and which you point to as causing your conclusion, all exist as abstract conscious ideas. As such, they cannot cause anything, including even the conclusion you want us to accept. This is simply your statement taken seriously.

I don't accept ideas are abstract, I consider all thoughts to be reducible to material states. Once again you deploy a circular argument, presupposing materialism to be false to prove materialism is false. How tiresome.

If your theory is true, state your arguments and conclusion in terms of their true causes, that being molecular configurations. Not only would you find this task impossible, it would leave us totally baffled as to what abstract ideas those descriptions actually referred to. For all we could tell, those descriptions might be referring to conscious states about the dark side of the moon, or nothing at all.

Red herring. My incapacity to explain a computer program in the terms of the position of switches in a computer, your inability to understand me if I did, do not in fact make computer programs magical and/or abstract entities as your argument implies.

Despite your protests, there is no logical correspondence between brain states and conscious states such that one must necessarily cause the appropriate other.

You keep saying that but all you do is show you lack any understanding of neurology. By all means, if you can, show the scientific world your brilliant proofs which demonstrate brain states do not relate to conscious states. Please make sure you record it for Youtube viewing pleasure.

In order for thought to parallel the material world, we must assume that thought appears to the brain in the same way it appears to our understanding.

Absolutely false. Once again, going back to the computer analogy, a program need not display the same way in the computer as it does in the material world.

It does not. The brain understands only blind physical forces, which in themselves are never true or false, but simply are, whereas thought, when true, affirms itself in a way other than simply being, and when false is a negation of itself, which in physical terms would amount to a self contradiction, since it would require the physical forces to both exist, and yet not exist, at the same time.

The same circular argument, the same ignorance of neurology. Our capacity to recognize discontinuity has solid evolution based explanations that one would expect to find in a highly sophisticated lifeform.

If you want to insist that conscious states must meaningfully correlate with brain states, then describe for us the physical brain state which correlates with your conscious experience of the last word of this sentence. It should be an easy task, for one should logically imply the other.

If you want to insist that computer states must meaningfully correlate with data states, then describe for us the physical computer state which correlates with your data set of the last word of this sentence. It should be an easy task, for one should logically imply the other.

This should be incredibly obvious to you but using something does not imply you know precisely how it works down to the atomic level. Or, perhaps you could explain to us all the chemical interactions and atomic motions that and electrical impulses that went into you typing your last post. Just because something is part of you does not mean one intrinsically understands it fully, nor is there any reason beyond absurd red herrings to believe it would

[CharlesV]

Abraxas...Let’s ponder a simple question: What is it that causes you to think that materialism is a true philosophy?

If your answer to this question is “groupings of molecules in my brain,� we would immediately see the inadequacy of that answer, for molecules cannot discern between true and false ideas. Think about it. If conscious thought has absolutely no causal power, produces no causal effects, and thus confers no biological benefit, molecules would have no means of discriminating between true and false thought, as both alike would be equally inconsequential and effectively non-existent to the molecules, and to the body itself. Physical molecules obviously cannot distinguish between that which doesn’t physically exist for the molecules.

More importantly, your answer would miss entirely the point of the question. It’s not the material cause of your belief that the question is addressing. Rather, what is the rational justification that causes your belief? It’s rational justification -- the employment of reason -- which has the power to separate true ideas from false. But rational justification is a conscious endeavor. It is the conscious manipulation of concepts by a logical process in which true ideas impress themselves upon the conscious mind in a way that false ideas cannot. This is how logic works, and is how we discriminate between truth and fiction. Given the effort you’ve applied in making your arguments you obviously believe this as well.

This is a serious mistake in your thinking. Rational justification, being a conscious activity, has no power to cause anything, including even the power to cause a justified belief. Thus the arguments you point to as causing your belief, if true, would invalidate those very reasons you have for holding that belief. This is the materialist’s dilemma. The only reason for taking your arguments seriously would be if they were false, for only then could there be a true causal relation between a consciously understood argument and a warranted conscious belief. But if your arguments are false, then no justification ever exists for taking them seriously.

In philosophy words mean something, and we take them seriously. So when you say that consciousness has no power to cause anything, we have every right to hold you to it. This means that whatever is experienced in consciousness has no power to cause, to effect, or to bring about anything whatsoever. Anything else is pure myth.

And yes, abstract realities do really exist, even in your philosophy. If something exists, but has no physical powers, it is by defintion an abstract reality, for it can be nothing else. If consciousness had any physical being at all, it would, by that very fact, be capable of causing an effect on other physical things. Consciousness, by your own words, has no power to cause anything, and having none, is incapable of having an effect on anything. This is your stated position and we hold you to it.

On that thought, I’m off on another painting trip for a few days. Yes!

[Abraxas]

Abraxas...Let’s ponder a simple question: What is it that causes you to think that materialism is a true philosophy?

If your answer to this question is “groupings of molecules in my brain,� we would immediately see the inadequacy of that answer, for molecules cannot discern between true and false ideas.

And now we are back to the fallacy of composition. Groups of them can and do in the right configuration.

Think about it. If conscious thought has absolutely no causal power, produces no causal effects, and thus confers no biological benefit, molecules would have no means of discriminating between true and false thought, as both alike would be equally inconsequential and effectively non-existent to the molecules, and to the body itself. Physical molecules obviously cannot distinguish between that which doesn’t physically exist for the molecules.

This is still false. As consciousness is merely the manifestation of ordered chemical reactions of a certain type processing raw sensory data, and accurate processing of that sensory data created longevity in the ordered chemical reaction, it is of great benefit to process them accurately.

More importantly, your answer would miss entirely the point of the question. It’s not the material cause of your belief that the question is addressing. Rather, what is the rational justification that causes your belief?

I make no distinction between the two. My sensory input combined in such a way in my brain to perceive that to be the truth of the matter.

It’s rational justification -- the employment of reason -- which has the power to separate true ideas from false. But rational justification is a conscious endeavor.

It is still the processing of data which is what the brain does, what the atoms in the brain do.

It is the conscious manipulation of concepts by a logical process in which true ideas impress themselves upon the conscious mind in a way that false ideas cannot. This is how logic works, and is how we discriminate between truth and fiction.

No, this is how you think it works. How it actually works is the structure of the brain in a given configuration with a certain input will produce certain changes to the brain itself, as dictated by physical laws.

Given the effort you’ve applied in making your arguments you obviously believe this as well.

This is a serious mistake in your thinking. Rational justification, being a conscious activity, has no power to cause anything, including even the power to cause a justified belief.

Aside from the assertion it is a mistake, correct.

Thus the arguments you point to as causing your belief, if true, would invalidate those very reasons you have for holding that belief.

This is false. All it requires is I believe that the sensory input and brains tructure has reordered to believe something closer to the truth. Nothing about this is inherently contradictory no matter how many times you repeat otherwise.

This is the materialist’s dilemma. The only reason for taking your arguments seriously would be if they were false, for only then could there be a true causal relation between a consciously understood argument and a warranted conscious belief.

Wrong again. They would still be worth taking seriously as they are sensory inputt which reorders your brain.

But if your arguments are false, then no justification ever exists for taking them seriously.

In philosophy words mean something, and we take them seriously. So when you say that consciousness has no power to cause anything, we have every right to hold you to it. This means that whatever is experienced in consciousness has no power to cause, to effect, or to bring about anything whatsoever. Anything else is pure myth.

If words mean something you should use them more carefully. This time, you are committing an equivocation fallacy. That consciousness has no inherent causal power beyond the base chemical and automic reactions in the material brain does not mean the experiences, the sensory input that cause the brain to reorder itself and emerge as consciousness do not have causal power in relation to the brain and how it reforms.

And yes, abstract realities do really exist, even in your philosophy. If something exists, but has no physical powers, it is by defintion an abstract reality,

That is not what abstract means. Abstract, in philosophy, is a type, as opposed to a token. Consciousness in general as taken abstract, a specific instance of consciousness is not.

for it can be nothing else. If consciousness had any physical being at all, it would, by that very fact, be capable of causing an effect on other physical things. Consciousness, by your own words, has no power to cause anything, and having none, is incapable of having an effect on anything. This is your stated position and we hold you to it.

Because it has no matter or energy. That does not inherently imply it is an abstract object. Indeed, if anything, it is a property of certain arrangements of matter. It would be no more abstract than heaviness or density.

[CharlesV]

Abraxas…What, exactly, is conscious in the physical brain? The brain supposedly consists of physical molecules, physical atoms, physical forces, and the physical laws which govern them, none of which are conscious in themselves. And if something isn’t conscious itself, how can it be conscious at all without violating the Law of Identity?

A brick, even within a complex architectural structure, is still a brick. At no point does it cease to be a brick, or take on non-brick properties. A physical thing is what it is, regardless of its context, or external perspective from which it’s viewed.

A materialist might plausibly make the case that a human organism is merely a biological automaton that only acts as if its conscious, but even that would presume an outside conscious observer to make that judgment.

So what is it that’s actually conscious in the brain?

[Abraxas]

Abraxas…What, exactly, is conscious in the physical brain? The brain supposedly consists of physical molecules, physical atoms, physical forces, and the physical laws which govern them, none of which are conscious in themselves. And if something isn’t conscious itself, how can it be conscious at all without violating the Law of Identity?

A brick, even within a complex architectural structure, is still a brick. At no point does it cease to be a brick, or take on non-brick properties. A physical thing is what it is, regardless of its context, or external perspective from which it’s viewed.

A materialist might plausibly make the case that a human organism is merely a biological automaton that only acts as if its conscious, but even that would presume an outside conscious observer to make that judgment.

So what is it that’s actually conscious in the brain?

The interactions between parts much as the interaction between switches form the computer program you are using right now.

[CharlesV]

Abraxas…The interactions between the brain’s physical parts are conscious? A physical interaction is nothing more or less than the physical parts which are doing the interacting. There cannot be an interacting interaction, any more than there can be a moving movement. A movement without something that moves, or an interaction without something interacting, is strictly nothing. But the physical parts doing the interacting are not conscious. This much we’ve already established.

So what, then, is actually conscious? Nothing at all?

[Crazy Ivan]

Abraxas…The interactions between the brain’s physical parts are conscious? A physical interaction is nothing more or less than the physical parts which are doing the interacting. There cannot be an interacting interaction, any more than there can be a moving movement. A movement without something that moves, or an interaction without something interacting, is strictly nothing. But the physical parts doing the interacting are not conscious. This much we’ve already established.

So what, then, is actually conscious? Nothing at all?

If you've already been told that consciousness arises from the sum of complex interactions of the brain's physical parts, why would you ask if any part is conscious on its own?

[CharlesV]

Abraxas…The sum of complex interactions of the brain’s physical parts is conscious?

If the sum of the brain’s complex interactions is nothing apart from the sum of the physical parts which do the interacting, and the sum of the physical parts is nothing apart from the physical parts themselves, and none of the physical parts themselves are conscious, what in the brain is actually conscious?

Are you suggesting that a physical part, though not conscious itself, if part of a sum, is now also conscious? How is it possible for the same part to both be, and not be, conscious at the same time? It makes no logical sense.

Restating the same problem is not going to solve it.

[Crazy Ivan]

Abraxas…The sum of complex interactions of the brain’s physical parts is conscious?

I'll assume you're addressing ME. No, it IS what we're referring to as "consciousness", not "conscious". "Conscious" is an object imbued with the quality of "consciousness".

If the sum of the brain’s complex interactions is nothing apart from the sum of the physical parts which do the interacting

"Nothing apart"? A "couple" is nothing more than two people? Being true, any two people constitute a "couple", which is not the case. Depends on the proper configuration.

and the sum of the physical parts is nothing apart from the physical parts themselves, and none of the physical parts themselves are conscious, what in the brain is actually conscious?

An automobile isn't just the sum of the parts. It's the sum of the parts in a specific configuration, which allows for the function, which will be a part of what defines "automobile".

Are you suggesting that a physical part, though not conscious itself, if part of a sum, is now also conscious?

No.

How is it possible for the same part to both be, and not be, conscious at the same time? It makes no logical sense.

You have to acknowledge the distinction between "conscious" and "consciousness".

[CharlesV]

Abraxas…In the physical world apart from consciousness, how would a dozen eggs be different from 12 individual eggs?

Physically speaking, they would not be different at all.

The magical word ‘sum’ to which you keep referring has no physical reality. In the physical world, everything that exists, be it brains, couples, automobiles, or dinner plates, all consist of individual physical particles and their spatial relations. This is what they physically are. Duplicate that and you would duplicate everything about the physical object.

Collective terms like ‘brain’, ‘couples’, and ‘automobiles’, are mental concepts only in which the imagined physical parts make reference to one another. In the physical world, particles and their forces make reference to nothing. They are not ‘of’ or ‘about’ anything. They simply are. A brain, as distinct from its individual particles and their space relations, is a physical nothing. And that which is physically nothing cannot cause anything, including consciousness.