Comments on: On Agent Causation http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Wedge http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43890 Wedge Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:28:19 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43890 andrew, So, instead of belief in a resurrected consciousness/soul which operates magically without a body, it's a belief in a magically reconstructed body? It doesn't strike me as any more plausible. andrew,

So, instead of belief in a resurrected consciousness/soul which operates magically without a body, it's a belief in a magically reconstructed body? It doesn't strike me as any more plausible.

]]> By: andrew http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43876 andrew Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:47:58 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43876 I'm sure the God who created teh universe can create the molecules that are needed to reconstruct our bodies. Oddly the idea of a physical ressurection is one that has only recently been lost to most Christians. It was one reason the Church opposed cremation for so long. It was believed that it would somehow hinder the ressurection. While I dont think it will(again, it should be easy for God to create whatever he needs to re-build our bodies) It does show that they believed in a physical ressurection. I'm sure the God who created teh universe can create the molecules that are needed to reconstruct our bodies.

Oddly the idea of a physical ressurection is one that has only recently been lost to most Christians. It was one reason the Church opposed cremation for so long. It was believed that it would somehow hinder the ressurection. While I dont think it will(again, it should be easy for God to create whatever he needs to re-build our bodies) It does show that they believed in a physical ressurection.

]]> By: Mathew Wilder http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43824 Mathew Wilder Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:15:21 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43824 @ andrew: I would say that idea is just as crazy as the dualist view. It still reeks of vitalism, and it also shows a great ignorance of basic physics. There are more people alive now than at any other time in history. Many of the molecules that make up the living have previously made up the now-dead. So if bodies are re-constituted at the ressurection, who gets the molecules? @ andrew: I would say that idea is just as crazy as the dualist view. It still reeks of vitalism, and it also shows a great ignorance of basic physics. There are more people alive now than at any other time in history. Many of the molecules that make up the living have previously made up the now-dead. So if bodies are re-constituted at the ressurection, who gets the molecules?

]]> By: andrew http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43815 andrew Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:24:57 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43815 What about people who dont believe our bodies and souls are seperate at all, but are a distinctly univied whole. What would you say to a Christian who doesnt believe that our 'soul' flies off after death to heaven/hell leaving our bodies behind, but waits(sleeps or dies) for the end of times, when our BODIES will be ressurected? What about people who dont believe our bodies and souls are seperate at all, but are a distinctly univied whole.

What would you say to a Christian who doesnt believe that our 'soul' flies off after death to heaven/hell leaving our bodies behind, but waits(sleeps or dies) for the end of times, when our BODIES will be ressurected?

]]> By: Terry http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43630 Terry Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:51:32 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43630 No matter how absurd and seemingly random the behaviour of man, when viewed from a satelite in time series, patterns emerge that strongly suggest that all events are in lock step with a much larger, global dynamic. 6 degrees of separation is actually less than 2. What you say and do affects the middle east in less than two weeks just through your network of friends. Free will is impossible to test even as far out as the deep space probes. The many worlds hypothesis reflects all possible choices none of which is a proffered or "correct" path. Corroborative lab findings indicate quantum entanglement is real and a valid argument can be made against an entity making a choice contrary to all prior experiences. No matter how absurd and seemingly random the behaviour of man, when viewed from a satelite in time series, patterns emerge that strongly suggest that all events are in lock step with a much larger, global dynamic. 6 degrees of separation is actually less than 2. What you say and do affects the middle east in less than two weeks just through your network of friends. Free will is impossible to test even as far out as the deep space probes. The many worlds hypothesis reflects all possible choices none of which is a proffered or "correct" path. Corroborative lab findings indicate quantum entanglement is real and a valid argument can be made against an entity making a choice contrary to all prior experiences.

]]> By: MS Quixote http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43599 MS Quixote Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:11:29 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43599 As a side note, I just purchased both books--one in hardback, one in good the other in excellent condition--plus "Consciousness Explained" and only spent pennies over $11, not including shipping. Tough dilemma here: I don't know whether to be happy I can get premier works so cheap, or sad that demand is so low it drives the price down. As a side note, I just purchased both books--one in hardback, one in good the other in excellent condition--plus "Consciousness Explained" and only spent pennies over $11, not including shipping. Tough dilemma here: I don't know whether to be happy I can get premier works so cheap, or sad that demand is so low it drives the price down.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43595 Ebonmuse Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:19:35 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43595 Thanks, Quixote! I can't take full credit for that phrase - I think I originally read it in Dennett, either <i>Elbow Room</i> or <i>Freedom Evolves</i> (both of which I highly recommend, by the way), although I don't have the exact citation to hand or else I would have given it. Thanks, Quixote! I can't take full credit for that phrase - I think I originally read it in Dennett, either Elbow Room or Freedom Evolves (both of which I highly recommend, by the way), although I don't have the exact citation to hand or else I would have given it.

]]> By: MS Quixote http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43592 MS Quixote Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:03:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43592 <blockquote>far truer and more genuine than we could ever obtain from a philosophy that treats free acts as random and inexplicable lightning bolts without cause or motivation.</blockquote> Well said, both here and in the OP, EM--a toss of the theist hat in the air for you. And what better definition of free will could we hope for (nice grounding comment prase) than always choosing exactly what we want, as compatibilism implies.

far truer and more genuine than we could ever obtain from a philosophy that treats free acts as random and inexplicable lightning bolts without cause or motivation.

Well said, both here and in the OP, EM--a toss of the theist hat in the air for you. And what better definition of free will could we hope for (nice grounding comment prase) than always choosing exactly what we want, as compatibilism implies.

]]> By: cl http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43589 cl Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:31:27 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43589 D, Right on. Thanks for your sincerity, I opine that such can move mountains in debate, and excuse me for my uncertainty regarding your motive - it was rooted in several past experiences I've had here where the person engaging me chooses sarcasm and snark over sincerity and logic. I just didn't want to assume anything about you or your motive, if that makes sense. And I agree with the frustrating nature of the crime we reference. D,

Right on. Thanks for your sincerity, I opine that such can move mountains in debate, and excuse me for my uncertainty regarding your motive - it was rooted in several past experiences I've had here where the person engaging me chooses sarcasm and snark over sincerity and logic. I just didn't want to assume anything about you or your motive, if that makes sense.

And I agree with the frustrating nature of the crime we reference.

]]> By: D http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43587 D Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:59:03 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43587 cl, I was being genuine. I looked up <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punishment" rel="nofollow">the definition of punishment</a>, and it looks like I was using 2a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution; whereas it could also mean 2b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure. The former was what I meant to speak against; the latter does not necessarily entail harm. Looks like we agree on a lot of stuff, too; I can also understand and sympathize with such a father's desire for revenge. In fact, it's tremendously hard for me to avoid <i>actively endorsing</i> such a thing. The frustrating thing is that no amount of vengeance can bring the daughter back. Nothing can. That kind of permanent loss is, to my mind, one of the worst things a person can do to another person, because it can never be set right. cl,
I was being genuine. I looked up the definition of punishment, and it looks like I was using 2a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution; whereas it could also mean 2b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure. The former was what I meant to speak against; the latter does not necessarily entail harm. Looks like we agree on a lot of stuff, too; I can also understand and sympathize with such a father's desire for revenge. In fact, it's tremendously hard for me to avoid actively endorsing such a thing. The frustrating thing is that no amount of vengeance can bring the daughter back. Nothing can. That kind of permanent loss is, to my mind, one of the worst things a person can do to another person, because it can never be set right.

]]> By: cl http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43583 cl Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:04:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43583 D, <blockquote>Additionally, you're correct on my unnecessary correlation of punishment and harm - in hindsight, it appears that I've been using a private definition of punishment, which I shall have to correct. I think I'll be shifting my line of attack from "a sadistic desire for punishment" to "a primitive desire for vengeance" in future discussions.</blockquote> Well, I honestly can't tell if this is sarcastic or genuine, and I don't want to assume, but either way my response would be the same: I don't argue that actual harm ought befall a meat machine when it malfunctions. My sole concerns are that the meat machine remains pulled from production until it stops malfunctioning. As you noted, this is much more complex with a meat machine than a machine. This all essentially distills to, <blockquote>I believe that my general point (focus should be on "fixing," not on "punishing") still holds.</blockquote> I agree, and all I'm saying is one can be an advocate for punishment (correctional action) without also being a sadist. The last thing I want to see is more people suffering in the world. Hence the importance of removing malfunctioning machines and attempting to fix them. However, without saying it's moral or not, the only type of desire for vengeance or the sadistic infliction of suffering I can say that I can genuinely <i>sympathize</i> with is that of a father who's only daughter has been savagely raped and murdered, as one example. D,

Additionally, you're correct on my unnecessary correlation of punishment and harm - in hindsight, it appears that I've been using a private definition of punishment, which I shall have to correct. I think I'll be shifting my line of attack from "a sadistic desire for punishment" to "a primitive desire for vengeance" in future discussions.

Well, I honestly can't tell if this is sarcastic or genuine, and I don't want to assume, but either way my response would be the same: I don't argue that actual harm ought befall a meat machine when it malfunctions. My sole concerns are that the meat machine remains pulled from production until it stops malfunctioning. As you noted, this is much more complex with a meat machine than a machine. This all essentially distills to,

I believe that my general point (focus should be on "fixing," not on "punishing") still holds.

I agree, and all I'm saying is one can be an advocate for punishment (correctional action) without also being a sadist. The last thing I want to see is more people suffering in the world. Hence the importance of removing malfunctioning machines and attempting to fix them.

However, without saying it's moral or not, the only type of desire for vengeance or the sadistic infliction of suffering I can say that I can genuinely sympathize with is that of a father who's only daughter has been savagely raped and murdered, as one example.

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/on-agent-causation.html#comment-43570 OMGF Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:31:50 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=935#comment-43570 No worries D. No worries D.

]]>