God is the best planner of all?

[Abdul Fattah]

hi

Folks, thanks for the insights (work demands). I have only had time to barely scan them, I will do my best to study them.

If I have understood some of the replies correctly it is the preservation of the Quran is seen, by some, as the main reason to believe Islam/Quran to be devinely inspired?

JD7

Not just the fact that it has been kept preserved, also it's miraculous characteristics. Although I should add, that most people generally also have personal reasons/experiences and emotional arguments rather then only theoretical reasons.

 

[Azy]

Hi Steve

However you're not only assuming that there's causal relations in our brains, you're also assuming that our free will is a direct result of it! Basically that makes as much sense as saying: "we see that cars and houses and lakes and mountains and distant stars and galaxies don't have souls, so why would humans have a soul if we haven't found it anywhere else.

Well it's more like saying "we see that cars and houses and lakes and mountains and distant stars and galaxies all work by action of the laws of nature, so why wouldn't humans"

And like I said, there are many indication of a spiritual soul

Well it would have been incredibly useful if you'd brought this up earlier. Do you have a few that you could share with us?

So things can only be true if there's sufficient reason to think they are true. That's a very bold arrogant statement. there used to be a time when there weren't any reasons to think that the earth isn't the center of the universe. If people would have your attitude, we'd still be in those dark ages.

It's not a case of things not being true
if there isn't sufficient reason, it's about having a reason to accept new proposals as truth. If you can justify a new idea, fine, but if anyone can put forward anything and have it considered as a possible alternative then academia would just be a mindless frenzy.

Yes, there was a time when people thought that the earth was the center of the universe and no there weren't really any good reasons to think that it wasn't. In the main part folk thought that God made people special, so it made sense that we'd be at the centre of the universe, and even after there was a good reason to think the universe wasn't earth-centric people were still getting burnt as heretics.

No arguing by links please.

Since you're not going to acknowledge it I'll summarise.
Test subjects were given a choice of when to press a buzzer.
The subject registered a concious choice of when to press the buzzer, but the subconscious mind had already committed itself to starting a movement a good 2/3 of a second before.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy

Well it's more like saying "we see that cars and houses and lakes and mountains and distant stars and galaxies all work by action of the laws of nature, so why wouldn't humans"

Not really, because I'm not saying that humans aren't following the law of nature, I'm saying that additionally to the normal default laws of nature the soul might also have an input. So I'm not contradicting that the normal laws of nature are the default ones.

Well it would have been incredibly useful if you'd brought this up earlier. Do you have a few that you could share with us?

You must have overlooked it then; no problem I'll repeat it:
Special relativity suggests four-dimensionalism; the theory that objects have 4 dimensions and persist over time rather then endure through time.
This theory in turn suggests that consciousness is a separate entity from our physical bodies, or in other words supports the mind-body duality.
Next to that, the theory also suggest that the universe is more like a "static 4D set of stages" rather then a dynamic 3D universe that moves over a 4th dimension. All movement is an illusion caused by our consciousness going from one 3d stage-segment to the next stage, much similar to how a film creates the illusion of movement by projecting one picture after another on a canvas.

It's not a case of things not being true
if there isn't sufficient reason, it's about having a reason to accept new proposals as truth. If you can justify a new idea, fine, but if anyone can put forward anything and have it considered as a possible alternative then academia would just be a mindless frenzy.

Like I said before, the mere possibility of an alternative being true renders your argument inconclusive. So even if you don't accept my alternative view (which I never asked you to do in the first place); that view still renders your argument as flawed. See the thing is, you're not just ignoring the alternative; your argument's validnesses relies on my alternative to be false! That's a whole different thing then. Because that means it no longer is a case of you not wanting to accept it as true because lack of proof (which is neutral, and I would understand), but rather it's a case of you wanting to accept it as false without anything rendering it false (which is biased)!

Yes, there was a time when people thought that the earth was the center of the universe and no there weren't really any good reasons to think that it wasn't. In the main part folk thought that God made people special, so it made sense that we'd be at the centre of the universe, and even after there was a good reason to think the universe wasn't earth-centric people were still getting burnt as heretics.

Nice to finally agree on something ^_^
So lets stop flaming my views and start agreeing to disagree, shall we?

Since you're not going to acknowledge it I'll summarise.
Test subjects were given a choice of when to press a buzzer.
The subject registered a concious choice of when to press the buzzer, but the subconscious mind had already committed itself to starting a movement a good 2/3 of a second before.

Interesting, but that poses many questions to the interpretation of the experiment. For example:

1. When something is subconscious, should that mean it's no longer our personal choice, or do we also have a free subconsciousness will?

2. Can our choices influence our future subconsciousness state? For example, if at one point of your life you consciously choose not to believe, would that make you subconsciously biased against anything religious?

3. How do you measure the time between our subconsciousness and our will? I mean, I understand how you measure between subconsciousness and consciousness. But the interpretation of the experiment, that subconsciousness precedes will is biased. It relies on the assumption that our consciousness creates the illusion of having free will. If it's the other way around, that our will creates our (physical) state of mind then that experiment doesn't contradict anything, in fact a sort of inertia would be perfectly natural and to be expected.

 

[Azy]

Hi Steve

Not really, because I'm not saying that humans aren't following the law of nature, I'm saying that additionally to the normal default laws of nature the soul might also have an input. So I'm not contradicting that the normal laws of nature are the default ones.

The point being that noone has ever seen any reason to think the soul has an input, or even show that a soul exists and what it might be.

Special relativity suggests four-dimensionalism; the theory that objects have 4 dimensions and persist over time rather then endure through time.
This theory in turn suggests that consciousness is a separate entity from our physical bodies, or in other words supports the mind-body duality.
Next to that, the theory also suggest that the universe is more like a "static 4D set of stages" rather then a dynamic 3D universe that moves over a 4th dimension. All movement is an illusion caused by our consciousness going from one 3d stage-segment to the next stage, much similar to how a film creates the illusion of movement by projecting one picture after another on a canvas.

Yeah, but perdurantism or 4-dimensionalism doesn't really say anything about consciousness does it. And to think you laid into me about quantum determinism not being 100%.
I think you might have to be a bit more specific about how special relativity leads onto a discussion about the human consciousness and a soul, because I looked through the maths and I couldn't see it.

Like I said before, the mere possibility of an alternative being true renders your argument inconclusive. So even if you don't accept my alternative view (which I never asked you to do in the first place); that view still renders your argument as flawed.

Possibilities do not render arguments inconclusive. My squid scenario is possible but that doesn't mean anyone should take it seriously without good reason. There are trillions of possibilities for any situation, but we have to make certain assumptions about what we already know for things to make sense. Tomorrow gravity might stop working the way it does, or perhaps Elvis is asleep in my bed. Maybe I have a nuclear weapon in my basement.

All possible and all completely meaningless as I just conjured them up. They don't have any bearing on the actual state of the world. I wouldn't expect everyone to start bolting down their possessions on my say-so.

1. When something is subconscious, should that mean it's no longer our personal choice, or do we also have a free subconsciousness will?

Would you consider deliberation over choices a subconscious event, I personally wouldn't.

2. Can our choices influence our future subconsciousness state? For example, if at one point of your life you consciously choose not to believe, would that make you subconsciously biased against anything religious?

I don't know about that specific example but yeah, conditioning does happen all the time.

3. How do you measure the time between our subconsciousness and our will? I mean, I understand how you measure between subconsciousness and consciousness. But the interpretation of the experiment, that subconsciousness precedes will is biased. It relies on the assumption that our consciousness creates the illusion of having free will. If it's the other way around, that our will creates our (physical) state of mind then that experiment doesn't contradict anything, in fact a sort of inertia would be perfectly natural and to be expected.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what you seem to be suggesting is that free will does not require any conscious decision making by the subject.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi SteveThe point being that noone has ever seen any reason to think the soul has an input, or even show that a soul exists and what it might be.

There's plenty of reasons to think the soul gives input, just not any reasons you're willing to accept. I can understand that, however that still means your biased, and of story.

Yeah, but perdurantism or 4-dimensionalism doesn't really say anything about consciousness does it.

Yes it does, if our bodies are fourdimensional, then why is our conciousness only "present" in one 3d-segment at the time. Why do we remember the events from the past but not from the future. If you ponder on these things from a 4dimensionalism perspective, then it becomes obvious that our conscousness is a seperate entity from our 4d-body

And to think you laid into me about quantum determinism not being 100%.

What's your point?

Possibilities do not render arguments inconclusive.

They do when argument preassumes that the posibility does not exist in the first place! I've already showed you how the squid thing is different because nobody is building arguments relying on those theories being true or untrue.

Would you consider deliberation over choices a subconscious event, I personally wouldn't.

I think choices can be made both conscious or subconscious. I don't see how one would be less free then the other. People have control over their subconsciousness, the control just isn't direct but rather indirect.

I don't know about that specific example but yeah, conditioning does happen all the time.

yeah, and if conditioning is by choice, then in a way even choices that seem predetermined by subconsciousness could be conditioned first by free will.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what you seem to be suggesting is that free will does not require any conscious decision making by the subject.

I don't think that is a necessary requirement, no.

 

[Azy]

There's plenty of reasons to think the soul gives input, just not any reasons you're willing to accept. I can understand that, however that still means your biased, and of story.

If it's scientific I can accept it, if it's outside that scope then sorry you're right, at the moment I'm not willing to.

Yes it does, if our bodies are fourdimensional, then why is our conciousness only "present" in one 3d-segment at the time. Why do we remember the events from the past but not from the future. If you ponder on these things from a 4dimensionalism perspective, then it becomes obvious that our conscousness is a seperate entity from our 4d-body

There is nothing in SR or 4-dimensionalism that is specific to people or consciousness.

I think choices can be made both conscious or subconscious. I don't see how one would be less free then the other. People have control over their subconsciousness, the control just isn't direct but rather indirect.

yeah, and if conditioning is by choice, then in a way even choices that seem predetermined by subconsciousness could be conditioned first by free will.

So you wouldn't consider reasoning out a decision in your conscious mind a result of free will but rather an indirect result of some free subconscious process?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy, sorry for the late reply, as you might have noticed I haven't been on this site for a couple of days.

If it's scientific I can accept it, if it's outside that scope then sorry you're right, at the moment I'm not willing to.

So if the strength of your argument against free will relies on your own ill will to accept it's flaws, as you admit, then for what reason should we accept your argument? Basically you're saying that if it's not scientific it's not worth considering. I think that's inappropriate especially in a field where science is unable to convince us in either way.

There is nothing in SR or 4-dimensionalism that is specific to people or consciousness.

I never said it is "in" those theories, I said it's a direct result of those theories.

So you wouldn't consider reasoning out a decision in your conscious mind a result of free will but rather an indirect result of some free subconscious process?

That's not what I said. The way I see it; part of our conscious decisions are free and part of them are not. And similarly part of our subconscious decisions are free and some of them are not. I don't see why things have to be black or white as you put it. There will obviously often be a correlation between subconscious and conscious, but that correlation may be different from what you (or that biased interpretation of the experiment for that matter) suggest it to be. Like I said before, the only thing scientific we know is that there are correlation. But with knowledge of these correlations we do not know the nature relations! We do not know which effect which or in what manner, or if both are simultaneously related to a third.

 

[Azy]

Hi Azy, sorry for the late reply, as you might have noticed I haven't been on this site for a couple of days.

Me too it's been a bit busy round here lately :/

So if the strength of your argument against free will relies on your own ill will to accept it's flaws, as you admit, then for what reason should we accept your argument?

No one has shown that there are any other mechanisms at work here. I don't mean speculation, verifiable mechanisms.

Basically you're saying that if it's not scientific it's not worth considering. I think that's inappropriate especially in a field where science is unable to convince us in either way.

Science is a method we use to make deductions about the world through systematic means. If it is outside science, and thus unverifiable by our mechanisms, then how would or could we consider it?

I never said it is "in" those theories, I said it's a direct result of those theories.

Under normal circumstances everything around you will experience the same way, there is nothing suggested or implied or following on from those theories that you could single out as applying only to the human brain and not to a rock or a computer.

That's not what I said. The way I see it; part of our conscious decisions are free and part of them are not. And similarly part of our subconscious decisions are free and some of them are not. I don't see why things have to be black or white as you put it. There will obviously often be a correlation between subconscious and conscious, but that correlation may be different from what you (or that biased interpretation of the experiment for that matter) suggest it to be. Like I said before, the only thing scientific we know is that there are correlation. But with knowledge of these correlations we do not know the nature relations! We do not know which effect which or in what manner, or if both are simultaneously related to a third.

The problem I have is with saying "we don't know the exact processes" and then "so let's suggest an unverifiable non-specific mechanism that we have never observed directly or indirectly and give it a level pegging alongside the fundamental forces of nature as a reason for consciousness and will".

Yes with science we only have correlations, but that's still more than any other hypothesis that has been put foward.

 

[arabianprincess]

So...what was the point of them existing? God knew they would sin, he planned for them to sin, he knew they would reject the message, he knew he would destroy them, he knew he would save Noah, he knew they were going to hell.

Bit of a waste of time eh?

theres a difference btw knowin wat u ll chooose n not forcin you to choose it .. he knows wat u will choose but doesnt interfere in ur choice .. u get the point.:enough!:

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy

So if the strength of your argument against free will relies on your own ill will to accept it's flaws, as you admit, then for what reason should we accept your argument?

No one has shown that there are any other mechanisms at work here. I don't mean speculation, verifiable mechanisms.

That doesn't cut the mustard Azy. Were your position defensive/neutral, where you claim that you don't believe in free will due to lack of evidence in favor of free will, then I would accept this reply. But your former argument was not defensive/neutral but negative/offensive where you claimed that you concluded free will does not exist based on scientific findings. In other words, my point from the start has been, that you should allow "free will" the benefit of the doubt since science in inconclusive on whether or not it exists, and you cannot go around saying that science denies the existence of free will.

Basically you're saying that if it's not scientific it's not worth considering. I think that's inappropriate especially in a field where science is unable to convince us in either way.

Science is a method we use to make deductions about the world through systematic means. If it is outside science, and thus unverifiable by our mechanisms, then how would or could we consider it?...
+
... The problem I have is with saying "we don't know the exact processes" and then "so let's suggest an unverifiable non-specific mechanism that we have never observed directly or indirectly and give it a level pegging alongside the fundamental forces of nature as a reason for consciousness and will".

Don't get me wrong I do understand very well the benefits of a scientific methodology in theory, however we have to face the reality that this method of investigation has practical limitations. At some points certain theories and hypothesis become way to complex and/or abstract to test trough scientific methodologies. If I understood you correctly, what you seem to be suggesting is that we should simply ignore all those things. Thats a very narrow-minded ignorant position (no offense intended) to simply ignore certain possibilities simply because it is not testable within a certain method of investigation. If I could make an analogy, say there is an investigator looking for a murderer. The first thing to do would be to check for certain classical things, forensics clues, people with motives, alibis and so on. If those leads all end up cold, some investigators might pursue other more unusual clues and methodologies to find the culprit. In the same way I respect your position where you say that the first methodology to understanding the universe should be science. However I don't agree with your position that you should end there and ignore any theory when science ends up being inconclusive, and simply ignore everything else. It is true that different evidence in a murder case will hold different strengths in a courtroom; but that shouldn't stop detectives from pursuing any possible lead. And then finally, to end the analogy; when you say that free will doesn't exist because you lack scientific evidence of it, is similar to saying that a suspect wasn't the killer because the investigator didn't find any proofs. Thats a flawed conclusion, a slippery slope. It could be that he was the murderer after all, but simply didn't leave any clues, or that he did leave them but the detectives overlooked them. A good investigator will always have an open mind towards this.

Yes with science we only have correlations, but that's still more than any other hypothesis that has been put foward.

No, not at all. These correlations are completely neutral. You claim that they support your contra-free-will-position, but I might as well say the correlations support my pro-free-will-position. The only thing scientific is the correlation itself; all the rest (your contra-position and my pro-position) is not science, but instead it is interpretation of science.

Under normal circumstances everything around you will experience the same way, there is nothing suggested or implied or following on from those theories that you could single out as applying only to the human brain and not to a rock or a computer.

That's where I disagree. There is a huge compatibility problem with the human brain and four-dimensionalism. A rock or computer doesn't have any consciousness. And thats a huge difference. Let my try one last time to explain the indications of this because I think you have missed my point:

1. Relativity of time suggests that objects experience time at a different rate depending on their velocity and that thus time is relative.
2. General Relativity of time suggests eternalism; the philosophical theory that different and far away eras in time (i.e: the past and future) are equally real and existing as the present similar to how different, and far away places are equally real as your current.
In fact the word "suggest" is a bit to weak here. It's a quite strong presumption for relativity to work without extra sub-theories.
3. Eternalism suggests four-dimensionalism, the theory that all objects have four dimensions. This means that an object, like say: "your body"; exists out of a sum of temporal parts. Your 3D body exists out of different parts like your right foot, left food, hand, torso and so on. And in a similar way does your 4D body exist out of "time-segments" like the part of your body that is 2y old, the part of your body in puberty and so on. All these 3D parts form a much bigger 4D object. This part is crucial to special relativity. If objects are not four-dimensional, then any object that travels trough time at a different rate, would be disconnected from the rest of the universe as it is pushed into a different "time-zone".
4. A four-dimensional body suggests that our consciousness is separate from our body. This because unlike our 4D body (which is stretched out over our past, present and future) our consciousness seems to be existing in the present only! Therefor by occhams razor, the most logical explanation would be that our body and our consciousness are two different things. This philosophically proves that there exists a mind-body duality.​

Of course, I gladly admit that proving mind-body duality does not equal to proving the existence of free will. It is however a huge paradigmatic step forward towards free will when you compare this view of the body and mind interaction to the more classical/causal view of the brain.

 

[Azy]

Hi Steve, sorry about the looong delay.

But your former argument was not defensive/neutral but negative/offensive where you claimed that you concluded free will does not exist based on scientific findings.

My position essentially is neutral, I never said there were scientific findings that disprove free will, or that directly prove determinism in the human brain (I'm pretty sure there'd be ethical mountains to climb before there was such experimentation). There are findings like the one I posted which suggest determinism but are far from concrete, but these aren't a basis for my opinion just something I found which seems to support it. I just don't see why I should give the benefit of the doubt to something that has never been demonstrated anywhere, nevermind in the human brain. If someone could show that such non-random prime movers exist in our universe that would help the free will case.

Don't get me wrong I do understand very well the benefits of a scientific methodology in theory, however we have to face the reality that this method of investigation has practical limitations. At some points certain theories and hypothesis become way to complex and/or abstract to test trough scientific methodologies. If I understood you correctly, what you seem to be suggesting is that we should simply ignore all those things. Thats a very narrow-minded ignorant position (no offense intended) to simply ignore certain possibilities simply because it is not testable within a certain method of investigation.

Do we have another method of investigation we can use to gain reliable answers?

If I could make an analogy, say there is an investigator looking for a murderer. The first thing to do would be to check for certain classical things, forensics clues, people with motives, alibis and so on. If those leads all end up cold, some investigators might pursue other more unusual clues and methodologies to find the culprit.

I like your analogy, but I think it might have a couple of problems.
You said yourself that evidence will hold different strengths, but you don't follow through with that. If it transpired that the only evidence in a murder trial was the testimony of a psychic then the case would get thrown out. Even if we were to assume that psychic powers were possible but beyond our detection there is no way we could verify the conclusion that results from it. We would be unable to tell whether the psychic just made it up because she didn't like the suspect or was just having a bad day. I don't know about you but I wouldn't like to be convicted on the basis of that evidence.

when you say that free will doesn't exist because you lack scientific evidence of it, is similar to saying that a suspect wasn't the killer because the investigator didn't find any proofs. Thats a flawed conclusion, a slippery slope. It could be that he was the murderer after all, but simply didn't leave any clues, or that he did leave them but the detectives overlooked them.

This helps nicely to illustrate my point.
If there were no clues left, or they were not discovered by the detectives, then why is this person a suspect?.

4. A four-dimensional body suggests that our consciousness is separate from our body. This because unlike our 4D body (which is stretched out over our past, present and future) our consciousness seems to be existing in the present only! Therefor by occhams razor, the most logical explanation would be that our body and our consciousness are two different things. This philosophically proves that there exists a mind-body duality.

I don't see how that follows.. in a 4 dimensional world your brain and it's effects would have a sequence of spatial and temporal parts, and at each point in the sequence the spatial parts would experience the time associated with it i.e the present.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy,
About your position being neutral, I'm sorry I must have misread your initial post. my bad =)

...
Free will cannot exist alongside causality if we take them both in the strictest sense.
As you said, our brains are just biochemical machines, albeit very complex machines. As far as we know causality does not stop between people's ears, so it would seem reasonable as with any other situation that the outcome is determined by the initial conditions.
If the initial conditions are the same (and I mean exactly the same) then you should get the same outcome, the same thoughts produced by the brain, the same decision regardless of how many times you ran through the scenario.
This would mean free will does not exist if the functions of your brain are deterministic.

If your brain functions are not deterministic then we are all essentially playing god and creating something from nothing, effects without causes.

So in what way is this neutral?

Do we have another method of investigation we can use to gain reliable answers?

Well I already admitted in my analogy that not all methods hold up the same strength. You replied that I don't follow trough with that analogy, but I actually do. I do recognize that different methodologies do not give the same guarantee of reliability. However, the reason I still find them important despite that is that in some fields reliability simply cannot be guaranteed, so if in such a field you only consider things that can be guaranteed you remain ins a narrow minded status quo. So what I am pleading for is not for people to see different methodologies as equal with science. Instead what I plead for is that people consider different methodologies, and that they keep in mind that each methodology has its weaknesses and benefits. I'm also saying that we shouldn't compare one methodology to another as inferior/superior. What is superior by one criteria can be inferior by another criteria. For example, science is superior to philosophy in terms of reliability, but it is inferior to philosophy since it is so narrow and confined to material interactions only. So each methodology has its own benefits downsides that make it more/less appropriate to be used in a specific area of expertise. Let me try another analogy: Lets say that a sociologist comes us with an explanation about certain human behavior, and he backs that up with sociological explanations. A biologist might reject the theories saying: well it's not scientific, you haven't shown me any proofs from biology that humans do indeed behave like that because of this and that reason. Although the biologist is technically right, he's being unfair towards the sociology. Because his very objection suggests that sociology is inferior to biology, probably because it's more reliable. But on the other hand, an economist might actually hold sociology as superior over biology, since sociology is much more pragmatic and informs him of which market is most profitable.

This helps nicely to illustrate my point.
If there were no clues left, or they were not discovered by the detectives, then why is this person a suspect?.

A good detective suspects everyone until they can be excluded. It's called open-mindedness

I don't see how that follows.. in a 4 dimensional world your brain and it's effects would have a sequence of spatial and temporal parts, and at each point in the sequence the spatial parts would experience the time associated with it i.e the present.

Yes, someone else mentioned this alternative to me in between this post and my last. I have since then reconsidered the fact. Of course I have to admit this alternative strips my argument from being conclusive, nevertheless I still favor my view for numerous reasons. A copy paste from my website:

Although I recognize and acknowledge the alternative, I remain reluctant to accept it. I have plenty reason for that, I shall begin by showing my reason for my inclination against it, starting from strong to weak, and finally finish by showing why Ockhams razor isn't able to defend the alternative.

1. Flaw of illusion of continuity.
I explained in the previous sections, how movement is an illusion created by the succession of alternated positions. So it is only logical that defenders of the alternative would use my own argument against me, and say that likewise the continuity of consciousness is an illusion by the succession of altered consciousness. However, there's a kink in the cable there. The reason that movement could very well be an illusion brought by the succession of parts with altered positions relies on the succession of observation of those parts. If consciousness itself persists, then the theory would break down. What keeps our observations together? Well I'm anticipating that opponents would suggest the following reply to this problem:
"Every observation is stored into the brain, and at any instant our consciousness is affected by this while it is generated. So the illusion of succession is created by the chronological storage of events within our memory."
Now, although I have to grant that this possibility is possible, I don't consider it very plausible. The brain works with a neural network. Memories are not preserved in chronological order within it. People might store dates and reference in time, but the memories aren't classified by time. So piecing together chronology would be quite a challenging puzzle for our subconscious. Therefor the suggestion that our notion of continuity is constantly being caused by the instantiation of a consciousness which relies on the chronology of our memories is very unlikely simply because memories aren't stored chronologically.

2. Psychological relativity of passage of time and observational relativity of passage of time.
I've already explained how time is relative according to Einsteins relativity theory. However relativity of time can refer to two other types of relativity. Based on our constant passive passage trough in time, mankind has become able to somewhat estimate lengths of time without equipment. However those estimations of time are often inaccurate by one of the following two reasons. The first one is psychological. A person who is exited probably feels as though time moves faster, as opposed to when he's bored and time appears to move slower. This will cause him to estimate exciting events as shorter then they actually were and boring events as longer. Another example of psychological influence is the age. If you ask a 5 year old to wait one year, it will seem much longer to him as opposed to asking a 50 year old person. The reason a year of time seems so much longer is simply a matter of proportions, to the 5 year old "a year" is a 5th of his current lifespan, whereas to a 50 year old, it is only a 50th of his total lifespan. Now I grant that proponents of conscious persisting over time, might use this in their favor. For they might claim this as an indication that an instantiated consciousness based on memory isn't that far fetched afterall. However, consider this: If time appears to go slower, simply because there are a lesser amount of memories during a dull event to mark the passage of time, then how do you explain spacing out? As I explain in the page about my story I frequently experience moments where I am indulged into thought. One thought triggers the other, and before I have realized it, hours can have passed while it seemed as just a few minutes. If our concept of time and continuity trough time really is generated by the instantiation of consciousness based on memories, then a length of time which is crammed by a whole range of different meaningful thoughts should appear to be longer then it actually is, as opposed to appear shorter. No, to me it seems mush more plausible that our estimation of time comes from a conscious judgment rather then the other way around, our consciousness depending on an estimation of time.

This is illustrated far more by a third relativity of passage of time. Next to Einsteins relativity of time, and psychological estimations of time, there is a third kind of relativity of time. The neurological relativity of time. Our brain is dependent on impulses, these impulses however aren't always going at the same speed. Certain substances can speed up or slow down their speed. When they are slowed down, we would have a different estimation of time, however we would still have the same amount of memories! See slowing down the process of storing memories doesn't alter the number of memories that we store, it simply delays them.

3. Necessity and uselessness of consciousness.
If our consciousness is constantly instantiated and then evaporates, if it is a side effect and not a self-pertaining can it influence or manifest a will? I hold that under this view, consciousness is completely and utterly useless. Then I wonder, why do we have it? Both creationists and evolutionists would struggle to answer, a God wouldn't have created it if it was useless, and evolution wouldn't have favored it if it was useless. Perhaps some might say it was simply a side-effect. Again, I'm forced to grant the possibility although I find that very implausible.

4. Lucid dreams.
I personally have lucid dreams, since childhood on. Only recently though, I have become aware with the technical term. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a lucid dream is a dream where you are aware of your dream environment. A dream where you are aware that you are in fact dreaming. Now there are a few things to note about. First of all let us consider the difference in memories of dreams and actual events. Although we are not always lucid in our dreams, we are usually able to distinguish our dreams from our real life when we are awake. That means memories of dreams are stored differently as opposed to memories of real events. Another indication for this, all of your senses are different in your dreams to. You don't actually hear with your physical ears, or see with your eyes when you are dreaming. The impulses are not generated from these organs. Now I think it would be quite a stretch to argue that despite of this difference in storage, our instantiated consciousness is affected by it all the same. In case the proponents would argue that lucid dreams are a side effect of a sort of malfunction of the brain, where it stores memories on the wrong location; I would reply that that is unlikely due to the fact that there are many training techniques to increase the chance of having lucid dreams. And all of these techniques are very simple things, focussed on awareness, not the kind of thing that would mess up your hardwiring.
Yet another interesting thing to consider, is how one can become lucid during dreams. Most of the time, I have become lucid due to reality checks. To give an example; the other day I dreamed it was the first day of school after a vacation period. I arrived at school and after a short reception, while it struck me odd that everybody left, I checked my watch to discover it was only 6:30. Way to early for school. But wait a minute, if it's 6:30 now, then that reception would have been at 6 o'clock in the morning? Wait, maybe I'm dreaming then? As you can see, I became lucid because of the illogical chain of events. Now what's so interesting about it, is that i graduated several years ago. If I would have been able to remember just one of my memories from graduation, or anything past it, I would have immediately realized it was a dream, yet all the same I did have to rely on this complicated reality check. This is because during dreams, one doesn't have memories. If a consciousness would truly be generated based on the physical state of the brain, including it's memories, that would imply that memories are intrinsic to consciousness! A consciousness without memories is thus a rather challenging concept for that theory.
A third argument could be made, based on the premise that consciousness exists only in lucid dreams. Some might argue that even when you are not lucid, you still have a primitive form of consciousness, but most people see lucid dreams as a synonym for conscious dreams. Perhaps the difference of opinion lies in the semantical value of "consciousness". Either way, if only lucid dreams are conscious, it's interesting that they can be triggered by reality checks. If consciousness is a side effect of brain activity, like proponents of persistence of consciousness over time claim, then why can this side effect be "switched on" by a subconscious thought?
Perhaps more convincing, but at the same time more controversial are a very specific type of lucid dreams that I only had the pleasure of experiencing once: out of body experiences. The most distinctive about this experience was the wakening. My experience was stopped by my alarm clock. As I started to hear it in my dream, I realized immediately it was time to get up, since I was lucid. I felt myself move at very high speeds, and as I did the sound of the alarm became increasingly louder. Eventually the movement stopped and I regained control of my body. But regaining did not felt as an awakening at all. When I wake up from a regular lucid dream there are some differences. Just as awakening from regular dreams, you are somewhat drowsy and disorientated this was not the case in that one specific experience. A second difference is, that even when your dream is lucid, when you awake their is a lapse of consciousness. The continuity seems broken, however this didn't happen during the out of body experience.

5. Deja vu/flashback/vision.
This isn't really an argument in favor of my position, but still relevant enough to mention, since I will later refer to it while defeating the defense of the alternative by Ocham's razor. There are many theories attempting to explain phenomena like Deja vu's, flashbacks and visions. I'm not going to pretend I know which one -if any- of them is correct. The only reason I brought it up is to illustrate how these phenomena's can be explained a lot easier when consciousness is enduring trough time rather then persisting over time. These phenomenas would then be nothing more then asynchronous movement. I'm not claiming this to be an elegant explanation, just a simple one.

6. Problems with identity.
This also isn't really an argument, but just something I'd like the readers to take into consideration. And it isn't really anything that is unique for four-dimensionalism, because the consideration can easily be made without considering time. If at any time your consciousness is instantiated, that means each temporal consciousness exists on it's own. There is no connectivity between different consciousness except than that they are formed by temporal parts of the same four-dimensional body. But consider material nihilism for a moment. Material nihilism, by which mean that a body made up out of smaller parts isn't really an entity. We only define it as being a "thing" for practical reasons. The argument goes, matter is not fluent but exists out of compositions of smaller particles. These particles aren't truly linked to one another, instead they are held in position by force fields. One could argue the same is true not only for our spatial parts, but also for our temporal parts. Even more problematic for our concept of identity is that our particles aren't always our particles. Well that's not really accurate under the theory of four-dimensionalism, but let me explain what I mean. Consider the well known paradox of the ship of Theseus. A ship that's resting in the harbor decays, but its planks are constantly repaired by newer ones until eventually none of the original are left. The original planks aren't thrown away either, they are kept and reassembled as a new ship called "plank". Now the materialistic nihilism is the only that makes sense here. Considering the life of one plank, it's temporal parts from the past are part of the ship of Theseus, and it's temporal parts of the present are parts of the ship plank. Only this way does identity make sense. For years philosophers have defended the idea of identity by one last sacred part of our bodies, our consciousness. I think, therefor I am goes the popular argument. If however consciousness also persists over time, even that argument breaks down. Human kind would suffer some sort of identity crisis. Why feel bad of your past or work for a better future, when "you" exist in neither one of it. You are you only in the present, in the future another consciousness will take over, and you'll no longer exist. Now of course I grant, that however worrisome or threatening a theory might be we cannot exclude it's possibility on that basis if we honestly seek the truth. However, what we should consider, is that if consciousness persist over time, that means that concepts like regret, anticipation, hope, and any other though or feeling that indicates relationships between different consciousnesses out of different temporal body parts is also an illusion, or should I say delusion? Again I find it implausible that even that part of our minds is wrong about reality.

7. Defeat of Ockhams razor.
Ok, so having explained some of the problems I have with accepting the persistence of consciousness over time, let us consider if we can use Ockhams razor or not. The proponents of persistence trough time of consciousness could argue that consciousness as a side effect of brain processes is mush simpler then having to explain consciousness as a separate entity, which abides by a different set of natural laws. However proponents of endurance trough time of the consciousness could argue that although their opponents are right about a side affect being a simpler explanation than a separate entity, that the side effect-theory calls for several other complex explanations as explained in the 6 previous arguments, whereas in the separate entity explanation, all these other things are quite simple to explain. So looking at the bigger picture, a consciousness as a separate entity is actually a far simpler explanation. I find this another fitting example of how Ockhams razor is often flawed by bias. There are no criteria for weighing of the complexity of one theory against the complexities of another. So using Ockhams razor here does not follow the rules of logic. In stead all we can do is express our inclination, what we find most plausible, simply because it adds up in our paradigm.
​

 

[Eeman]

This is something I have never understood.

God is the best planner of all.

Yet God's plans went awry and Mohammad’s revelations had to come along to straighten things out. Later J. Smith’s revelations had to come along and straighten things out again.

Examining that concept leads to the conclusion that God isn’t the best planner.

I would like to see an argument presented (that would stand up to examination) that would show why Mohammad’s visions are more acceptable or believable than Joseph Smith’s.

Why should/would Mohammad be any more believable than Joseph Smith?

Why Muslim instead of Mormon?

Your argument/stance, should promote Islam while showing why the same argument/stance, couldn’t/shouldn’t be applied to accepting Joseph Smith’s teachings.

Why did you choose Islam over Mormonism?

I am looking forward to reading the responses.
JD7

:uuh: who is j smith??????????

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
Smith is believed to be a prophet in mormonism, the member's account has been disabled a while ago though, so he can't answer.

 

[Azy]

Sorry for bringing this thread back up but there was one thing I intended to add a long time ago and my work prevented me from doing so. (Wonder if steve is still active )

A good detective suspects everyone until they can be excluded. It's called open-mindedness

Everyone is a potential suspect. Only when there is evidence to link a person to the crime do they become a suspect.

Questioning all the 6 billion potential suspects along with the ones we have evidence against does not yield any useful information because without evidence against them we cannot know if they committed the crime (or the hypothesis is correct).